(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Hearing"

*y« 




San Francisco Public Library 



REFERENCE BOOK 



Not to be taken from the Library 



LSoo 
2oo\ 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 2 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2001 
2:40 P.M. 



410-F 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2 001 
2:40 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



3 1223 03273 9816 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR ROSS JOHNSON, Vice Chair 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR ED VINCENT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

SUSIE SWATT, Consultant to SENATOR JOHNSON 

CHRIS BURNS, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

TIM SHELLEY, Consultant to SENATOR KARNETTE 

CAROLYN ROBINSON, Consultant to SENATOR VINCENT 

ALSO PRESENT 

STEVEN GOURLEY, Director 
Department of Motor Vehicles 

BILL CATHER, Legislative Liaison 
Department of Motor Vehicles 

TIMOTHY M. FRIES 

California Union of Safety Employees 

MEL ASSAGI 

California Trucking Association 

IRA J. HOWARD, Chair 
Disabled Advisory Committee 
Department of Motor Vehicles 

SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO 

PAUL GEROWITZ, Legislative Director 
Protection and Advocacy, Inc. 

4 49386 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
88 SFPL 07/07/03 10 



Ill 



PATRICIA McPARTLAND 

Californians for Disability Rights 

JOE EGAN, Chief Counsel 
Department of Rehabilitation 

HOWARD SCHWARTZ, Chief Counsel 
Department of Personnel Administration 

ASSEMBLYMEMBER DARRELL STEINBERG 

FRED BUENROSTRO, Chief Deputy Director 
Department of Personnel Administration 

BARRY BROAD 
Teamsters 

CRAIG A. COPELAN 

Professional Engineers in California Government 

STEVE BAKER 

California Association of Highway Patrolmen 

CDF Firefighters 

California Association of Professional Scientists 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

STEVEN GOURLEY, Director 

Department of Motor Vehicles 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Number of Contracts per Quarter 2 

Issuance of Fraudulent I.D 3 

Importance of Driver's License as 

Form of Identification 5 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Implementation of SB 2084, 

Truck Registration Bill 6 

Response by BILL CATHER, Legislative 

Director, Department of Motor Vehicles 7 

Administrative Fees from VLF 

Collections 7 

Disabled Placards 9 

Reason for Current Appeal 9 

Who Called for Appeal of Case 10 

Cost of Preparing Placards 12 

Reason Administration Is Fighting with 

Appeal to Supreme Court 13 

No Justification for Cost of Placard 15 



Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Number of Disabled Plates Issued 16 

Placard Is Minimum Requirement or 

Less Than Minimum 16 

Processing of Placard Vs. Plate 18 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Issue other than $20 Million That Is 

Causing Appeal 19 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Temporary Vs. Permanent Placards 19 

Need to Apprise Senate of Status 

Of Appealed Case 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Issue Is Whether ADA Applies to State 2 

Statement by MR. GOURLEY re: 

Letter of December 19 from Californians for 
Disability Rights 21 

Witnesses in Support : 

TIM FRIES 

California Union of Safety Employees 22 

MEL ASSAGAI 

California Trucking Association 22 

IRA JACK HOWARD, Chair 

Disabled Advisory Committee 

Department of Motor Vehicles 22 

SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO 24 



VI 



Witnesses in Opposition: 

PAUL GEROWITZ, Legislative Director 

Protection and Advocacy, Inc 25 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Difference between Accommodation and 

Benefit 26 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Director Not Calling the Shots on Appeal 

Issue 28 

PAT McPARTLAND 

Californians for Disability Rights 29 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Payment for Parking 31 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Why Director's Testimony Didn't 

Dispell Opposition 32 

Idea for $20 Million Rebate 32 

Response by MR. GOURLEY 35 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

What Happened to Governor ' s Order to 

Enter into Settlement Discussions 36 

Response by JOE EGAN, Chief Counsel 

Department of Rehabilitation 36 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Seriousness of Settlement Discussions 39 

Questions of PAUL GEROWITZ re: 

Awareness of Settlement regarding the 

$20 Million 40 



VI 1 



Condition of Writ Being Withdrawn 4 

Motion to Confirm 41 

Committee Action 41 

HOWARD SCHWARTZ, Chief Counsel 

Department of Personnel Administration 42 

Introduction and Support by 

ASSEMBLY MEMBER DARRELL STEINBERG 42 

Background and Experience 43 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Current Status of Negotiations between 

Employee Unions and Cal PERS 45 

Hang-up for CSEA Units 45 

What Happens if All Groups Can't Come 

To Agreement 46 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Other Proposals to Employee Groups 47 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Employee Morale 47 

One Unit Agrees, All Must Follow 4 8 

Use of Differentials to Recruit and 

Retain Personnel in Problem Areas 4 8 

Shortage of Medical Personnel in 

Prison System 48 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

PERS Recent Action to Increase Per 

Diem for Board Members 50 



Vlll 



Response by FRED BUENROSTRO, Chief Deputy- 
Director, Department of Personnel 
Administration 50 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Legality of PERS Board Action 50 

Where Money Comes From on Self -Issued 

Checks 51 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Reducing Healthcare Costs by Offering 

Preventive Services 51 

Retroactivity of Proposals for Those 

Units Late in Accepting 52 

Statements by SENATOR VINCENT re: 

Impressed with Candidate' s Record 53 

Witnesses in Support: 

BARRY BROAD 

Teamsters 53 

CRAIG COPELAN 

Professional Engineers in California Government 54 

STEVE BAKER 

California Association of Highway Patrolmen 

CDF Firefighters 

California Association of Professional Scientists .... 54 

TIM FRIES 

California Union of Safety Employees 54 

Motion to Confirm 54 

Committee Action 55 

Termination of Proceedings 55 

Certificate of Reporter 56 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointee, Director, 
Department of Motor Vehicles, Steven Gourley. 

Director. 

MR. GOURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of 
the Committee. 

I'm Steven Gourley. I'm Director of the 
Department of Motor Vehicles. 

I'm both proud and grateful to be entrusted by 
the Governor to this position. It has been my pleasure over the 
last eleven months to work with the dedicated and hard working 
people at the Department of Motor Vehicles. 

I would like briefly to share some of the 
accomplishments that we've achieved in the first year, and they 
will be very brief. 

We have a highly successful internet registration 
project, I think, of which you're all aware. It is the most 
successful e-business government initiative in the state. 

I have implemented a review of contracts and 
contract procedures at the Department. We do between 900 and 
1200 contracts every quarter. This is to save money, make 
money, and to avoid expensive contractual disputes. 

We have implemented stringent anti-fraud measures 
to fight identity theft. That has been the subject of a more 
extensive hearing in Long Beach which Senator Karnette was Chair 
of, the Transportation Committee at that time. 

I have revised the reasonable accommodation 



program at the Department of Motor Vehicles so that there is, 
indeed/ reasonable accommodation for our employees. 

Finally, I have made every effort to take every 
program that we have, that we enforce, and there are many at the 
Department of Motor Vehicles, and make those programs pay for 
themselves so that there are more monies to expend on behalf of 
the citizens of the State of California. 

In addition, since there have been some questions 
about the Department of Motor Vehicles' relationship with the 
disability community, I pledge now, here, and have throughout my 
administration, to work with the disabled community on all 
issues and to be an advocate on their behalf with respect to 
issues that are important to them. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions at this time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gourley, you mentioned you work how many 
contracts a quarter? 

MR. GOURLEY: Between 900 and 1200. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: What kind of contracts and why 
that many per quarter? 

MR. GOURLEY: They're mainly questions of people 
who are legally able to obtain information from us, such as 
insurance companies. Many of them are the same contract over 
and over again, and are required by statute to be, in one way or 
another, but have not been reviewed for business purposes since 



1983. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: One other question. 

There's been considerable discussion about 
issuance of fraudulent I.D. cards, licenses, et cetera. What 
are we doing about that? 

How can you issue a license to somebody who can't 
read English, speak English? 

MR. GOURLEY: Well, a number of — I would have 
to beg indulgence to talk to my staff — but we now, according 
to the — boy, and I had it in my notes — the Dymally-Alatorre 
Bilingual Act. We give the test in any number of languages. 
You have to forgive me, I do not know the exact number of 
languages. And therefore, they are able to take and pass the 
test, and we have drive examiners who are able to give tests in 
all of those languages. 

In addition, we have, pursuant to the 
Dymally-Alatorre Act, we have signs, and we've worked very 
carefully with, I think it's interesting enough, the Mexican 
American Legal Education Foundation in San Francisco with 
respect to making sure that where the languages are a little bit 
more obscure, such as Mandarin, that if we do not give the test 
in that language, either drive test or written test at that 
site, that we have appropriate signs telling people where they 
can take a test in the language which is more comfortable for 
them. So, that's how we are able to do that, is that we have 
many customers who have many competing needs, and we try to meet 
all those customer needs. 

In terms of cracking down, and I cut this out of 



my presentation just in order to be a little more quick, we are 
working now with the various unions to do pre-employment 
screening of all employees so that we know whether any of our 
employees have criminal records. 

We have, since 1999, had new technology at the 
Department which allows us to call up, at a terminal within each 
office, a picture, your last driver's license picture. So, if 
somebody says, "I'm William J. Knight," and doesn't have an 
I.D., we can go to that terminal, push a button, and have 
William J. Knight's previous driver's license come up, and if 
you don't look like him, you don't get it. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I've aged a little bit, so the 
new one may not. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: You're better looking than 
ever. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. GOURLEY: And that's the thing, we'll give 
you the option of keeping the old picture. 

[Laughter. ] 
MR. GOURLEY: As Senator Karnette — I pointed 
out to Senator Karnette at the hearing in Long Beach, I'd like 
to keep my old picture because it used to have hair. 

In addition, we're doing a pilot project with the 
Department of Justice to see whether our finger prints are such 
that they can be used in a nation-wide data base in order to 
track down — what we'd like to have is a data base that tells 
us who you are, who you're not, and whether you've ever applied 
under another name before. That not only would stop a lot of 



fraud, but would deter a lot of people from trying to come in 
and pulling the wool over our eyes. 

We finally, after over eight years of 
negotiations with the Social Security Administration, got an 
agreement with the Social Security Administration that will 
allow us to check Social Security numbers with the Social 
Security numbers that are given to us by applicants. 

And we have, over the last ten years, led the 
nation in terms of the number of security features in our 
driver's licenses so that it is much more difficult to 
counterfeit them. 

So, those are the kinds of things we're doing. I 
could spend, as Senator Karnette knows, about two hours going 
into all the things that we're doing On the identity theft issue 
and which we hope to do. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Well, I think it's important 
because we have a tendency to use the driver's license as a 
significant piece of identification, to do most anything, for 
any kind of a transaction. 

MR. GOURLEY: Exactly. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: The first thing you have to do 
is pull out your driver's license. 

MR. GOURLEY: Exactly. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: If we can't depend on the fact 
that it is a real driver's license, and one that identifies you 
as an individual and one that you're entitled to, then I think 
we as a state are amiss. 

MR. GOURLEY: I agree with that. 



I'd just like to point out that we — my first 
week in office, I met with the former Director, Frank Zolan. 
And he said there's a bifurcation of the Department between 
registration and licensing. These are the two historical issues 
of the Department and its jobs. 

I think we finally have to come to grips with the 
fact that there is a third, and now actually more important than 
the prior two, and that is the job of identification. So, we 
not only are a licenser of people to drive, and some with some 
modicum of ability to make sure that they can confidently drive, 
we are a register of vehicles and the keeper of titles, but more 
importantly, we are now an identifier of human beings. And we 
take that job very seriously. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the DMV doing to see 
that SB 2084, the truck registration bill, is properly being 
implemented. 

MR. GOURLEY: Is this the IRP bill that we're 
talking about? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: 2 084, yes. 

MR. GOURLEY: I'm sorry, I don't know by specific 



number . 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: It was the bill that ~ 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: Mr. Chair. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes. Identify yourself for the 



record. 

MR. CATHER: We're doing everything possible. We 
have a whole unit that works nothing but on that particular 
subject. We're intent on putting into place. 

Of course, we worked with the industry and with 
the Legislature throughout its implementation to make sure that 
it did get passed, did have the provisions that it needed in 
order to be workable with the rest of the country, and so that 
we didn't lose out on federal funding. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much administrative fees do 
you get off the top on the VLF collections? 

MR. CATHER: I'm afraid I don't know that number, 
sir. 

MR. GOURLEY: If any of my people back there do, 
yell out. Twenty-eight dollars off the VLF. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What percent is that? Flat 
fee, $28? Bill. 

MR. CATHER: Senator, if I may, we got a 
reimbursement from the Motor Vehicle License Fee of $750,710,000 
dollar in the current budget year. We collect about $3 billion 
for the local, city, and county governments through the Vehicle 
License Fees each year. 

MR. GOURLEY: Prior to the most recent cut in the 
VLF, we collected approximately $6.5 billion for the entire 
state. 

MR. CATHER: That's all funds and revenues. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why does it cost you 28 bucks 
to do that? 



8 

MR. CATHER: Senator, if I could clarify. 

I'm sorry, Bill Cather, Legislative Director for 
the Department of Motor Vehicles. 

The $28 that was referenced is actually the 
Vehicle Registration Fee which all vehicles pay. It goes into 
the Motor Vehicle Account. 

I think Senator Burton was talking about the new 
property taxes, which are the vehicle license fees. That's a 
separate amount based on the value of the vehicle. That's a 
little over three billion that we collect now. Of course, that 
is going down as the Legislature has reduced the amount that's 
being collected. And of that amount, we get a percentage as a 
cost of our collection. It's how much is collected, a 
percentage is applied, and that's how much money we get as our 
collection costs. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does it cost you any more to 
collect a big check than a small check? 

MR. GOURLEY: I doubt if it is, but I know that 
it evens out. It's very similar to the amount of the fee that 
we pay, or that is paid for — that we charge for the Internet 
Registration Project, is that some people pay a higher bank 
discount fee and some pay a lower discount fee. In order to 
cover it all, we charge four dollars per transaction. So, it 
does even out. 

We are required by statute to collect our costs, 
and we do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Costs plus, or just costs? 

MR. GOURLEY: Costs. 



9 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You don't make money on any of 
these? 

MR. GOURLEY: Unfortunately not. If they would 
let me do that — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't think you're supposed 
to. 

MR. GOURLEY: Then we're doing it exactly the way 
you want, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe what you might want to do 
is have the Director have a meeting with Mr. McClintock and 
Mr. Morrow on that issue. 

Let me get to one that's important to me. It's 
the disabled placard. Where are we on that? 

MR. GOURLEY: Well, the litigation, as you know, 
Dare versus Department of Motor Vehicles, is still pending. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's only pending because you 
appealed it. 

MR. GOURLEY: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, why are you appealing it? 
Why don't you just say forget it and get on with life? 

MR. GOURLEY: My understanding is that the reason 
for the appeal was because there was a $20 million to be repaid 
plus attorneys fees, and that the administration was not willing 
to do that without further review of the merits of the case. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about when the judge told 
them they lost? The district court ruled they lost, violated 
the ADA? 

It ill behooves the state that passes laws that 



10 

tell private sector they have to comply with them, and then to 
violate something like the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Is that your call? Is it the Governor's call? 
Is it the Department head or the Agency's call? Who called that 
one? 

MR. GOURLEY: It was called through discussion 
between the Agency, the Department, and the Governor's office. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So you're still appealing it. 

MR. GOURLEY: It's still being appealed. We are 
trying to have it mediated. We have made settlement offers to 
the Governor's orders. We have not gotten any response to our 
last settlement offer. 

And the settlement offer always includes waiving 
the fee and ending the fee forever. And as you know, the fee 
hasn't been charged since 1997 pursuant to the court's order. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You support a statutory 
limitation of the fee? 

MR. GOURLEY: I certainly do, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So you're fighting over money 
that was illegally taken from these people, and that's what 
we're fighting about. 

MR. GOURLEY: The issue is how much has been 
collected, and whether it should be returned to the persons who 
paid it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Didn't the court find that it 
was illegally taken? 

MR. GOURLEY: Yes, it did. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, it's not unlike the 



11 

Smog Impact Fee. I mean, the state didn't appeal that, and it 
was a hell of a lot more money than that. Were you involved in 
that one? 

MR. GOURLEY: No, I wasn't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who did that? 

MR. GOURLEY: DMV was involved. The Governor 
made that decision prior to my being appointed. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When did you get appointed? 

MR. GOURLEY: January 10th. The determination on 
the Smog Impact Fee was done sometime in November of 1999. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much was that? 

MR. GOURLEY: It came to approximately six 
hundred-some-odd million dollars. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is 20 million? 

MR. GOURLEY: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That was from people who 
brought cars out of the state. This is from people who are 
disabled. 

MR. GOURLEY: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you see any problem? 

MR. GOURLEY: Do I see a problem with it? I 
certainly see that there's an issue of legality. There's a 
question of whether the last appeal was taken; whether the 
administration agreed with the court's decision, or whether they 
thought that there was a chance to challenge it on its merits. 

In terms of numbers, you're right. Twenty 
million dollars is one-thirtieth of six hundred million dollars. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That money would come out of 



12 

where? Out of the DMV account? 

MR. GOURLEY: I think it would, yes. It's 
currently being subsidized by the general fund. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What is? 

MR. GOURLEY: The cost of preparing the placards 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What does it cost to prepare 
the placards? 

MR. GOURLEY: I have the numbers here. The 
bottom line is, since 1997, the Department has lost $11 million 
from preparing the placards without charging for them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's $3 million a year, 
roughly. 

MR. GOURLEY: Roughly, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you admit you're obeying 
the court's order that you shouldn't have done it. You're not 
charging them since the court told you not to, but you want to 
keep the money that was illegally taken. 

MR. GOURLEY: I think the need is to find out 
final determination from the highest court in the land whether, 
in fact, the prior court — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're going to go all the way 
up to the god damn United States Supreme Court for $20 million 
when they gave away $680 million without a burp? That's what 
you're telling me? 

MR. GOURLEY: I'm afraid that's the truth. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Whose policy is that, yours, 
the Agency's, or the Governor's? 

MR. GOURLEY: It's a combination of all three. 



13 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How did you vote in the 
meetings? 

MR. GOURLEY: I did not vote in the meetings. 
I'm merely carrying out the policy. And as I've stated both to 
disability groups as well as to you and other Members, I'm 
perfectly willing to support legislation that goes to repealing 
the $6 fee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about legislation that 
includes $20 million to give them back their dough? 

MR. GOURLEY: I think that would be beyond my 
ability to recommend. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't think it's beyond mine. 

What was the theory in the discussion? I'm 
missing something. I mean, they caved in a minute on Smog 
Impact Fee, and they're fighting this like they thought it was 
the Holy Writ. 

MR. GOURLEY: I think that the Governor is quite 
correct in looking at the Smog Impact Fee and determining that 
there was no merit to the State of California's argument that 
the State of California legitimately believed in 1990 that it 
needed funds, and that the Legislature and the Governor at that 
time enacted a law which they knew was of questionable value, 
but it needed the money. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You lost at the district. You 
lost at the Court of Appeal level. I mean, I'm missing the 
point. 

MR. GOURLEY: I'm sorry. There are issues of 
merit relating to the — 



14 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What are they? 

MR. GOURLEY: What it comes down to is this, in 
terms of the merits as opposed to any procedural issues, is that 
the Department takes the position that -- well, the ADA 
prohibits, in general terms, charging any amount for the bare 
minimum requirements of complying with the law. 

The Department takes the position that the bare 
minimum of providing accessibility to disabled parking is a 
plate, a hard plate that goes on your car like anybody else's 
car, and there is no additional charge for having that 
disability symbol or emblem on your plate. 

If you wish to move it from vehicle to vehicle, 
then you need a placard. That's something in addition. That is 
beyond the bare minimum. Therefore, it is reasonable to charge 
the cost. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You mean those little blue 



things? 



MR. GOURLEY: Exactly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't you make them out of 



cardboard? 



MR. GOURLEY: Exactly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you mean exactly? 

MR. GOURLEY: Do you want me to go through the 
whole procedure? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah. I want to figure out how 
expensive it can be to give somebody a piece of cardboard that 
basically says — and you're making, I don't know — how many 
disabled plates are there? 



15 

MR. GOURLEY: There are approximately, I believe, 
half a million. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, half a million, and you do 
it so it's a cardboard thing, like a parking thing, instead of 
one of those plastic deals. I mean, how can they cost six 
bucks? They ought to cost you about 30 cents tops. 

MR. GOURLEY: There's the application. There's 
the reviewing of the information that's prepared by the doctor. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The application, you said that 
they already have one on their car. When my disabled brother 
wants to use my car, you don't want to take the plate off, so he 
can put that. 

You already know who the hell it is; don't you? 

MR. GOURLEY: Most people apply for the placard. 
They don't apply for the plate. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then it's not costing any more 
than it would have cost the other way around. They're paying 
the same price for the plate as they did for that, so you're 
still beyond me. 

You have no god damn justification for doing 
that. The only justification you have is your boss, the Agency 
head, tells you to do it. That's the only justification you 
have. 

Who is your Agency head? 

MR. GOURLEY: Maria Contreras Sweet. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe we ought to bring her 
back up here and your budget to figure it out. Because that's 
the only justification, is someone told you to do it, because 



16 

there's no justification on the dough, as I look at it. I mean, 
there's no way those things can charge that much. 

Yes, Senator. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Question. It's always a 
mistake to ask questions you don't know the answer to, but I'm 
going to do it anyway. 

What are the number of disabled plates that are 
issued in California, the license plate with the symbol on it? 

MR. GOURLEY: The actual plates, I do not have 
that number. The numbers I have in front of me are that the 
original placards are 292,155 in 1999, and the renewals were 
841,000 in 1999. 

The actual plates, I do not have a number. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I would think that in trying to 
understand the merits of this, that that would be important to 
know, because if it is position of the administration that the 
granting of the plate is the minimum requirement, sounds like 
maybe giving the placard is not something more than, or in 
addition to the minimum required, but something less than the 
minimum required. 

Could you address that? 

MR. GOURLEY: I'm not really sure that I 
understand the question. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: If I understood your answers to 
Senator Burton, the position of the administration in appealing 
this case is that legally you believe you are required to 
provide certain minimum things under the law, but nothing beyond 
that minimum. And it's entirely appropriate to charge a fee for 



17 

something beyond that minimum. 

What I'm trying to understand is, what is the 
minimum? Is the minimum providing a disabled plate for a 
vehicle? And if that is the case, then is the granting of the 
placard not something more than the minimum required, but 
actually something less than the minimum required? Are the 
costs of providing that less? 

Am I making myself clear now? 

MR. GOURLEY: Yeah, I think I see where you're 
going. 

The issue is that indeed there is — that the 
plate is provided at no extra charge if it has a disability 
symbol on it; that's correct. 

The question is that if you want the ability to 
take ■ — transfer that, either transfer that or have one that is 
transferable, then you apply for the placard. You apply for the 
placard; there's a certain cost involved. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Is it the position that it is 
more expensive to process and provide the placard than to 
provide, at no cost beyond the normal license plate, a disabled 
license plate? 

Does it cost more or less to provide the 
handicapped or the disabled license plate as opposed to placard? 

MR. GOURLEY: I don't think there's a substantial 
difference in the cost of the plate. There is a cost of the 
processing to get the information to issue the plate. The 
placard — 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. 



18 

How does the processing of the placard differ 
from the processing of an application for a plate? 

MR. GOURLEY: Substantially it doesn't, but it's 
just a different issue of how it's prepared, mailed out, sent 
out, coded. You get the plate. You renew it every year. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Final question. I'm just 
trying to get a handle on this and how it works. 

Someone, a staff person, apparently, from the 
Department called out from the audience earlier that there are 
far more who apply for the placard than for the plate. 

MR. GOURLEY: Correct. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I have to presume that there 
are a certain of percentage of people who do both; is that 
right? 

MR. GOURLEY: Correct. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Do you treat those who apply 
for both differently than those who apply for one or the other? 

MR. GOURLEY: No. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: In other words, if I were to 
apply for a disabled plate, that's going to be provided to me. 
And the application process is no more than applying for an 
ordinary license plate. 

MR. GOURLEY: Correct. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: If I apply for that plate, no 
cost, but I also say I want to have a placard. Then it seems to 
me your argument makes some sense, or the position, because then 
you're clearly providing something more than the minimum that 
the law requires. 



19 

So, do you treat that person who applies for both 
differently than the person who walks in and says, "I just want 
the placard, please. I don't want the plate." 

MR. GOURLEY: No, they are both charged the same. 
They would have been both charged the six dollars prior to 1997. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there a lawyer here from 



DMV? 



MR. GOURLEY: As to which issue? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any God damn issue. Just a 



lawyer. 



MR. GOURLEY: I'm a lawyer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You didn't have the answers. 

MR. GOURLEY: We're not handling the case. The 
case is being handled by the Attorney General. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there an issue over and 
above the $20 million that's causing this appeal to the highest 
court of the land? 

MR. GOURLEY: Not that I know of. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I had one question. 

There are temporary placards issued. Is that a 
part of this discussion? 

MR. GOURLEY: No, it's not. It's my 
understanding that those were distinguished, and that it was 
ruled that those were — we were allowed to charge the temporary 
disabled placards separate and apart from the permanent disabled 
placards. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Because those people are not 



20 

permanently disabled. 

MR. GOURLEY: Correct. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Senator Burton, you mentioned 
the 20 million. 

Now that court case, we need to be kept apprised 
of that, I would think. Would you be willing to keep us 
apprised of what goes on in it? 

MR. GOURLEY: Oh, certainly. In fact, I can tell 
you that the matter is — the Petition for Certioari, or the 
appeal, has been made by the state. As I've explained to 
various members of the public and Members of this Committee, 
there's a prior case called Garrot versus the State of Alabama , 
which has already been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. And 
therefore most likely what comes down Garrot versus Alabama , 
which, absent the busyness of the Supreme Court with Florida 
over the last weeks, would have been probably issued by now, 
will determine this case entirely. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So there is an issue more than 
$2 million. You want to know whether or not the ADA applies to 



the state. 



MR. GOURLEY: That's also an issue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, that is the issue. That is 



the issue. 



The state does not want to be held to the 
standard that it will hold other private businesses. That is 
the issue. 

The issue isn't $20 million. The issue is to try 
to get out from under the ADA. 



21 

One of the things that basically the state could 
have done, and we wouldn't be here, and I wouldn't be getting 
adjuta, is to drop the appeal that's got nothing to do with 
anything but the collecting of the $20 million, and return the 
$20 million and let somebody else determine at a future date, at 
a future issue, whether or not the ADA applies to the state. 

And you're there as the guy. I don't know if 
your name's going to be the name on the pleading or what. 

MR. GOURLEY: I hope not. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who is it? 

MR. GOURLEY: Hopefully it's just Department of 
Motor Vehicles, not me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why? You're not too proud of 
what's going on? 

MR. GOURLEY: Well, I have enough lawsuits in my 
name based upon being Director of the Department of Motor 
Vehicles. I don't need any more. 

Everybody anytime challenges a revocation of 
license based on a drunk driving conviction, it's Joe Smith 
versus Gourley . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

MR. GOURLEY: May I make one final statement? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Surely. 

MR. GOURLEY: I received a letter dated December 
19th, year 2000, from the Californians for Disability Rights, in 
which they list an agenda that they have for working with the 
Department and working with the State of the California. 

I have spoken to Pat McPartland of that group and 



22 

have told her, as I represent to this group, that I very much 
would like to work with her group, and work with her for 
advocating the issues that she has laid forth in that letter. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about implementing them? 

MR. GOURLEY: And implementing them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're in a position to 
implement. They're only in a position of advocating. 

MR. GOURLEY: Right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That will be part of the 
record. 

MR. GOURLEY: Thank you. 

MR. FRIES: Tim Fries with the California Union 
of Safety Employees in support. 

We've already worked with the Director on a 
number of different issues. Some of them he's already taken 
action on. The identity theft will be a large one that we hope 
to work with the Department in the future for. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

MR. ASSAGAI: Mel Assagai for the California 
Trucking Association in support. 

We think working with the Director will be of 
benefit to our efforts to make the highways safer and to move 
freight more efficiently. 

We think working with the Director will help to 
create a better highway system and also to move freight more 
efficiently. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Mel. Next. 

MR. HOWARD: My name is Ira Jack Howard. I'm 



23 

here to support Director Gourley, and I have worked with the 
Department of Motor Vehicles for eleven-and-a-half years. 

I've been the Chairperson of DMV's Disabled 
Advisory Committee for the last three years of my eight-year 
membership. 

I have read some of the charges being made 
against Steven Gourley by people who do not know him, and I 
would appreciate the opportunity introduce you to the Steven 
Gourley that I know. 

Steven Gourley attended the Department of Motor 
Vehicles' Disabled Advisory Committee meeting in May of 2000. 
Steven Gourley asked for the Committee's suggestions regarding 
disabled person's placards and the parking privileges. Steven 
Gourley asked the Committee to review legislation relating to 
people with disabilities and to advise how to improve DMV's 
service. 

Steven Gourley related to the architectural 
accommodations necessary for physically restricted individuals 
in the workplace. He arranged for me to inspect a newly 
remodeled floor in the DMV's east building for accessibility on 
June 6 of 2000. 

Steven Gourley sent DMV's Disabled Advisory 
Committee to the Disabled in State Service Conference/ and DMV 
donated $2,500 to the conference, which was the highest monetary 
donation given by any department. 

Steven Gourley attended DMV's Disabled Advisory 
Committee's award luncheon in October, 2000. He spoke about 
workers with physical limitations providing valuable service in 



24 

the workplace, and he presented the scholarships and awards. 

I strongly support Steven Gourley's nomination 
for Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles because he has 
the strength and courage to accept this challenge of leadership, 
and the intelligence to reach his objective, along with a 
compassionate interest to serve all of the people of California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. Questions? 
Thank you very much. 

Senator Polanco. 

SENATOR POLANCO: Mr. Chairman and Members, thank 
you very much. 

On record, I have had the opportunity prior to 
his appointment to meet with Steven. You have in your record a 
letter from me in support of the nomination. 

In my capacity as the Budget Chair, I've had the 
opportunity to deal with many of the issues that confront the 
Department of Motor Vehicles. This is a person who has had 
local experience as well as, I'll bring you some legal 
background. He's really out of the box, if you will, in terms 
of the kind of history of where he comes from: local 
government, legal, not a traditional bureaucrat, if you will. 

Steven has, as I mentioned, been in my office, 
along with other Members, to discuss the issues that are 
important to streamlining the issue of registration. I have 
been most impressed with his investigations that have occurred 
of dealers up and down the state that have taken the opportunity 
to exploit, in some instances, families and members who are 
interested in purchasing, and being hoodwinked into contracts 



25 

that they should not have been allowed to enter. 

I see some strong desire to make government work 
for people. And I'm here to support his nomination and ask the 
Chairman and the Members of this body to do so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you be supportive of 
putting into their budget the $20 million that they owe the 
disabled for the illegal collection of the six dollar fees, as 
ruled by the court? Are you familiar with that one, Senator? 

SENATOR POLANCO: I'm not familiar with it. I'd 
be happy to review it. 

I think if the court ruled that there's a 
deficiency there, in my capacity I'd be happy to entertain that 
as motion and move it forward. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, Senator. 

Any questions. 

Witnesses in opposition. 

MR. GEROWITZ: Mr. Chair and Members, Paul 
Gerowitz, the Legislative Director of Protection and Advocacy, 
Incorporated, a private, nonprofit agency advocating for rights 
for people with disabilities. 

We oppose confirmation of Mr. Gourley. 

I just would like to talk just very briefly about 
the legal issues involved in the lawsuit, because I don't think 
they were accurately portrayed. 

The issue on — the factual issue is whether or 
not the placards represent a benefit or an accommodation, as I 
understand the cases, the Dare case. And the case held that it 
was an accommodation, and that's why the state couldn't charge 



26 

for it. If it was a benefit, the state could charge for it. 

I think that's simplistic, but I think that's 
basically what the holding was. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: What's the difference? 

MR. GEROWITZ: The difference would be that an 
accommodation is something that's reasonably necessary to allow 
equal access to facilities for a person with a disability. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: For example, a parking spot. 

MR. GEROWITZ: A parking spot, a ramp, whatever 
might be necessary. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: And if ordinarily there's a 
charge for that, and that charge is waived, wouldn't that be a 
benefit? 

MR. GEROWITZ: Yes, if there was ordinarily a 
charge for parking and the parking was waived, I guess you could 
make the argument that that would be a benefit.. 

I'm not here to litigate the case. I'm telling 
you what my understanding is. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I'm just trying to understand. 

MR. GEROWITZ: Yeah, you could certainly make 
that argument that if there was a fee above and beyond, but I 
don't think that was the issue. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Like quarter in a parking 
meter. 

MR. GEROWITZ: I think the issue was not the 
quarters that are or are not paid in parking meters but the six 
dollars for the plaque. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: But if I don't have to pay the 



27 

quarter because I've got the placard or the plate, does that 
meet your definition of a benefit? 

MR. GEROWITZ: I think you could make the 
argument. I can't answer it off the top of my head, and it 
wasn't an issue of the lawsuit. The lawsuit wasn't about 
whether or not the quarters were benefits. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Maybe it should have been. 

MR. GEROWITZ: Maybe it should have been. 

Protection and Advocacy would not have a problem 
with this confirmation had the appeal to the Writ of Certioari 
to the U.S. Supreme Court been based on that issue or that issue 
alone. 

The problem is that the really stronger — 
stronger is a bad phrase — the more dangerous argument being 
raised is whether or not the people of California have the right 
to sue the state for violations of ADA. And with all the 
five-four decisions going on in the U.S. Supreme Court, I think 
that that's the reason that appeal was taken, was because it's a 
roll of the dice, could win, save 20 million here, and save ever 
having to be sued again in any other case. 

The Garrot case is completely different 
factually. The only issue that this case has in common with the 
Garrot case is the 11th Amendment argument that you can't sue 



the state under the ADA. That's the Alabama case that was 
mentioned by Mr. Gourley as possibly being dispositive of this 
case. 

I think that proves that that's really what 
they're after, not — 



28 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But there's already case on 
that issue. 

MR. GEROWITZ: We're waiting to see how that will 
be decided. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that, but if the 
danger of this case is the 11th Amendment, that they can't sue 
the state, and you've got a case before the Supremes on that 
issue, it's bad for us to put ourselves in that situation. 

Except I think it's an ignoble act, where is the 
danger if they're going to decide whether or not states can be 
sued under the ADA? 

MR. GEROWITZ: Because the issue there is a 
medical discrimination issue, and it's possible that it won't be 
dispositive, that the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court could be 
narrow enough that it would not apply to this type of 
accommodation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What I really don't understand 
is how the hell they're charging six bucks for something they 
could make for about thirteen cents myself. 

MR. GEROWITZ: I wondered the same thing. 

In any event, Protection and Advocacy is opposed 
to confirming Mr. Gourley unless and until the appeal is 
dropped, the Writ of Certioari is withdrawn. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It seems clear to me that he's 
not the guy calling the shots up, down or sideways. I mean, 
he's down here. He's got the Agency head here and the 
appointing power there. So, I mean, if he wanted to drop, he 
couldn't drop it. He could probably go back to being Mayor of 



29 

Culver City as a matter of principle, but I don't think — he's 
not the guy in control of the lawsuit, clearly, for what it's 
worth. 

MR. GEROWITZ: I'm not sure what other avenue 
there is open to the community. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that. That's two 
of us. 

MR. GEROWITZ: Thank you for your time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next, please. 

MS. McPARTLAND: I'm Pat McPartland. I'm with 
the Californians for Disability Rights. 

We are — I'm speaking in opposition to 
Mr. Gourley. I had kind of hoped to withdraw my opposition 
after his statements, and I'm a little bit confused now as to 
where we really stand with that. 

We're very concerned about the Dare case, the 
case that we've been discussing before the Supreme Court. It 
threatens our rights under the ADA, and we're very anxious to 
have it withdrawn as soon as possible. We opposed Mr. Gourley' s 
appointment last summer based on this. 

The events that have occurred since last summer 
have suggested to us that he's not really the person that is 
blocking it. It seems to be an impasse between the Attorney 
General's Office and the attorneys for Dare . 

But Mr. Gourley' s obviously in very much of a 
position to help us, has a lot of influence in how it comes out. 
And we would like to see him advocating and articulating our 
position for the Governor. 



30 

There's a couple of things that have come up in 
the discussion so far today that I'd just like to address to 
provide you with the prospective of the disability community on 
how these placards are actually used, and the effect that they 
have. 

The issue has come up as to whether or not having 
the placard is an optional thing. It's been asserted that you 
can have access just by getting a plate, having the license 
plate on your car, and that in fact the placards are an 
additional benefit. 

I'd just like to say, from the perspective of a 
user, that as a practical matter, the placards are not at all 
optional, and that if you want to have access to the parking, 
you need to have a placard. You can have a plate on your car, 
but if you ever ride in the car of another person, you need to 
have that placard. 

This is often in my life. I have a boyfriend. 
He has a van that has a lift on it so I can use it, but he's not 
disabled, so he cannot have the plates. If I ride with him 
which I often do, I have to have that placard. It's not an 
option. 

That's the case of a lot of people. Many people 
with disabilities can't afford their own cars. They always ride 
with other people, and they have to have that placard. 

It's also true if you're traveling and using a 
rental car. When you're in another location other than your own 
private vehicle, you have to have that placard. 

So, as a practical matter, you can't get by with 



31 

just the plates and be able to use the accessible parking. 

The other thing I wanted to point out is, 
Mr. Johnson, you raised the issue of the quarters in the meter. 
I wanted to just point out that under the law, people with 
disabilities do not have to put quarters in the meter. The 
reason for that is not the savings of the money. It's because 
for myself and many other people with disabilities, we cannot 
physically access the place where the quarters go, and also 
would have extreme difficulty, after an hour or whatever, 
returning to add money to the meter. That's why that was put 
into the law, not to save the money. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: What about a publicly owned 
garage, parking structure, state parking structure? Do you pay 
when you exit that parking structure? 

MS. McPARTLAND: I'm in a state parking structure 
right now. It's 75 cents for half an hour. I pay it. It's not 
free. It's not waived. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I'm asking a question, looking 
for an answer. 

MS. McPARTLAND: Right. Yeah, I pay. I pay the 
parking fee. I believe that that is typical. I haven't 
encountered situations where the fee is waived. 

To get back to what — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you do me a favor? 

MS. McPARTLAND: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You came in here, at least what 
I thought I heard you say, as kind of inclined, maybe, to go 
along, take a duck, or whatever. Then the testimony you heard 



32 

raised some concerns. 

Would you mind sharing with us what transpired 
during the testimony that sort of caused — 

MS. McPARTLAND: We had written a letter which 
Mr. Gourley referred to on December 19th, and we asked for 
several things in the letter. And I can recount those for you, 
what they are. 

But Mr. Gourley had indicated to me that he could 
support all of those things. But I didn't really hear that in 
his testimony. So, that's why I'm hesitant. 

Then there were some issues raised about the $20 
million. What we had asked in the letter was that a fund be 
created that would be in DMV where the $20 million would be 
placed, and that that would be an interest-earning fund, and 
that the money that was earned from that would be given as 
grants to local governments and to community organizations for 
programs and services that would benefit drivers with 
disabilities . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You weren't looking for the six 
dollar rebate? 

MS. McPARTLAND: We feel like sending out 
millions of small checks is not really of benefit to anybody. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Don't let Senator McClintock 
hear you say that. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, basically your thought is, 
to take that money, put it in an interest bearing account, leave 
the principle there. And as interest develops, grants to the 



33 

locals? 

MS. McPARTLAND: That was our idea, yeah. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That seems fairly easy. 

MS. McPARTLAND: And we would like to see 
Mr. Gourley pushing for that idea with the Governor's office as 
a point in the settlement. 

I don't know what the sticking points are in the 
settlement, so I don't even know if that would help. But that 
was our — that was what we had asked of him. 

The other thing was concerning a piece of 
legislation that my organization is planning to get introduced, 
if everything goes the way we hope in the next few weeks. And 
what that would do is, it would plug some gaps in the state law 
so that, regardless what happens at the Supreme Court level, 
people with disabilities in California would still have the full 
protections that they now have under the ADA. And those gaps 
are in the area of program access and in the area of judicial 
remedies . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's not his deal; that's 
our deal. 

MS. McPARTLAND: Right. What we're looking for 
him to do is to support the idea. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: With all respect, he wouldn't 
even be relevant to it on that part. 

I think on supporting the concept of the 20 
million in the fund, it would be good to have his support, but I 
think we could get that in the budget in any event. And whether 
he supported it or not, the Governor will leave it in or take it 



34 

out, depending on his viewpoint. 

But I believe that you should, and I see the 
Chair of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary here, but if you 
should have proposals to protect the rights of disabled 
Californians, in the event that the court rules the way that it 
may well rule, that it would be great if we did that 
independently of the 20 million for the whatever. 

With respect to the Director of DMV, he could be 
for it or against it, and it ain't going to get a vote or lose a 
vote, if you follow what I'm saying? 

MS. McPARTLAND: With all due respect, there were 
some concerns raised about this bill that — as far as the 
administration opposing it, and I guess there were some vetoes 
last year. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that. All I'm 
saying is, he could be for it and it could get vetoed. He could 
be against it; it could get signed. 

MS. McPARTLAND: Yeah, and all we're really 
asking him to do is to advocate for us with the Governor. I 
mean, I know ultimately the Governor makes these decisions. 

And the other point in the bill, the other point 
in the legislation, is to remove from the law the provision that 
allows DMV to charge the six dollars. We want to just get that 
out of the law so there's no longer a conflict between 
California law and the ADA as far as the charging of these fees. 

And like I said, if I understood Mr. Gourley 
privately, he indicated to me he could support all these 
things. I'm just not sure I heard that in his testimony. 



35 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He'll have a chance to respond 
to that as he closes. He may not just may not have addressed it 
as fully as you would have liked. So, he can have a chance to 
speak to that . 

The bottom line, unfortunately, both in this case 
and in the laws, he's got a point of view, but when it's all 
over, that's all he's got is a point of view. He's not the one 
calling the shots. 

Again, speaking for myself and many Members at 
least that I know in the Senate, we would clearly push for the 
type of legislation you're talking about. 

MS. McPARTLAND: Thank you. I appreciate that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Could we solve the energy 
problem as easy? 

Any other comments? 

MS. McPARTLAND: That's it. Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in opposition? 

Mr. Gourley, do you want to respond? 

MR. GOURLEY: Yes, and I thought I had said it 



very clearly. 



think. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: It may have just got lost, I 



MR. GOURLEY: Is that I can definitely be the 
advocate for the disability community with respect to all the 
issues that they've raised in their letter of December 19th. 

Pat, I would be happy to work with you and any 
other members of the disability community who to wish work on 
those issues with me. 



36 

In fact, when I met with Pat and her group, was 
it May or June? In that area. They asked me to carry messages 
to the Governor's office with respect to concerns that they had, 
and indeed I did that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How were they received? 

MR. GOURLEY: Well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you tell me what happened? 
We tried to find out from Catherine Campisi, but the Governor 
instructed the lawyers to enter settlement discussions, and it's 
his intention to order an end to the appeal. 

Do you know what happened? 

MR. GOURLEY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What? 

MR. GOURLEY: There's Chief Counsel for the 
Department of Rehabilitation here. He's been following these. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Where is he. 

MR. GOURLEY: He probably can give you a better 
summary than I can. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Fine. 

MR. EGAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of the Committee. I'm Joe Egan, Chief Counsel for the 
Department of Rehabilitation. 

The Department of Motor Vehicles did make an 
offer of settlement shortly after the Governor directed that 
that be done. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which was what? 

MR. EGAN: Which was to maintain or to agree to 
the continuation of the injunction that was issued by the 



37 

district court, to discuss — enter into discussions with regard 
to the payment of attorneys' fees, and notice to members of the 
class. 

There was not a favorable response to that 
proposal . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about the thing that they 
just said, that they ain't even looking for the money? Take the 
20 million, put it in an interest bearing fund and use the money 
for the furtherance of Californians with disabilities driving. 

MR. EGAN: I think the Department of Motor 
Vehicles has indicated that they actually requested to meet with 
the plaintiffs to discuss all issues, including some 
compensation to the class, or alternatively -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I just asked specific question. 

MR. EGAN: They're willing to discuss that, and 
they've specifically stated that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What the hell's wrong with it? 

MR. EGAN: I'm not sure. I don't think there's 
anything wrong with it. I think that the Department has said 
they're willing to discuss it. I think it's probably the 
preferable alternative. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would think from your 
standpoint. 

Now, they discuss it, but who is calling the 
shots? 

MR. EGAN: I think I would defer to Director 
Gourley on that. 

But again, the plaintiffs have not been willing 



38 

to meet to discuss the issue unless the Department of Motor 
Vehicles first, as a precondition to any discussion, agrees to 
return of the $20 million. That's really not a position, I 
don't think, that anybody would go into negotiations agreeing to 
that issue before you even have a chance to discuss it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What the hell else is there to 
discuss? 

MR. EGAN: I think that there are options in 
terms of the amount they would be returned, or the way, if there 
is an amount that's going to be discussed, how it would be used. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You just heard somebody make 
what I thought was a fairly easy suggestion to accept. You're 
keeping the money; they're getting the interest, and it's going 
to something that makes sense for traffic safety, among other 
things . 

MR. EGAN: I think that as I understand it, I 
think the Department would be more than willing to discuss that 
issue. But at this point, that's not something that the 
plaintiffs have been willing to sit down and discuss. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It just kind of floated out 
here; didn't it? 

MR. EGAN: Again, it's something that I think has 
always been on the table from the perspective of DMV, and we 
encourage — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you guys raise that issue, 
here's what we'll do? 

MR. EGAN: It hasn't been specifically proposed. 
They've repeatedly stated their willingness to sit down and 



39 

discuss all issues. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right. 

Let me tell you something, and I know that the 
Chairman of Subcommittee Four that deals with DMV's budget came 
in in support, but if something doesn't happen on this issue, 
except for Bill Cather, of course, your budget's in real bad 
shape. Did I say that right? 

But we're very serious about this. We would have 
had this hearing earlier, and may well have just put it off and 
let the administration stew, except for the fact we got this 
statement from the Governor saying that they wanted to drop the 
appeal. And lo and behold, it goes from the district court to 
the circuit court. You lost there, and then want to go up to 
the Supremes, you know, hoping that the Renquist Court will find 
out that states aren't liable under is the Disability Act. 

But I'm telling you, if this thing is not worked 
out to the satisfaction of these groups, you can be the Director 
of a department with the smallest budget since before the war. 
I'm very serious about that, because I'm not impressed with 
what's happened here today. You know, I think that I can 
understand. You get into, we won't enter into discussions 
unless this, that, and the other thing. That's kind of why wars 
go on forever, people argue about stupid stuff. 

Basically, they have made, and I don't know if it 
can be an official offer and I don't know what her capacity is, 
but basically that ought to be easiest thing that any 
bureaucracy ever did, is just have money and give somebody the 
interest, as opposed to returning it. 



40 

Who's in negotiation, you? Lockyer's office? 
Who? 

MR. EGAN: The Attorney General's office. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you do? 

MR. EGAN: Sir, I'm the chief Counsel for the 
Department of Rehabilitation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know that, but what's your 
role? 

MR. EGAN: Basically, we've been consulting with 
the Department of Motor Vehicles and trying to see if we can 
broker some sort of good faith negotiation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Where is Gerowitz? Paul, come 
up here for a minute. 

I don't know if you were there when the 
suggestion was made that one of the things, instead of trying to 
figure out who gets $3.75, was to take total amount of money, 
put it into an interest bearing account, and use the interest to 
be making grants to local government, et cetera, on things for 
programs for drivers with disabilities. And we aren't going to 
negotiate that now, but we're trying to gets this thing off of 
dead center. 

That seemed to be something that, in my judgment, 
the state would have hard time arguing against. Were you ever 
aware of that? 

MR. GEROWITZ: I heard about that. Would that 
result in the writ being withdrawn? Would that be a condition? 

MR. EGAN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes. 



41 

MR. GEROWITZ: Because I think that's where we 
are. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

MR. GEROWITZ: Then we would be fine with that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't you enter into 
negotiations. Get to him, you get to Lockyer and figure out 
what they can do; okay. 

I mean, obviously, yeah, because otherwise, you 
got nothing. You're not gaining anything. You have nothing to 
lose, and we will push forward on the legislation in any event. 

MR. GEROWITZ: Okay, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other questions? 

All right. Based on those assurances, and I 
might add, threats, we will call the roll on the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: You're making the motion. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Kanette Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm sorry, you got family here 



42 

going through this ordeal? 

MR. GOURLEY: No, I don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Good for you. 

MR. GOURLEY: If I may, I wanted to explain that 
my wife taking care of her 82-year-old mother who's been 
admitted to intensive care at St. John's Hospital in Santa 
Monica, so she couldn't be here. But I also said she might not 
want to see me get beat up, and so I said stay home. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I had no idea it was going to 
turn to this. I thought all things were worked out. 

MR. GOURLEY: Thank you. Thank you all. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

Howard Schwartz. 

Darrell . 

ASSEMBLYMAN STEINBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 
and Members of the Committee. 

It's my honor and pleasure to it introduce to 
you, and to recommend for confirmation, Howard Schwartz as Chief 
Counsel of the Department of Personnel Administration. 

I've known Howard since I was 25 years old, a lot 
younger. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: How old are you now? 

ASSEMBLYMAN STEINBERG: I'm not going to say. 

I've known him for 16 years, I'll say that. 

Actually, when I first moved to Sacramento, I was 
hired by the California State Employees Association six months 
after Howard was hired. We worked together in that legal office 
for about 10 years. I wanted to take the time to come on 



43 

Howard's path here today, because I cannot think of a better 
choice to lead the legal department at the DPA than Howard. 

As I was coming up the ranks as a young lawyer, 
the best way I can describe it is, Howard was my go-to guy. 
He's the guy I would go to whenever I had questions or advice 
about how to handle sometimes very complicated problems. 

And if you remember during 1980s and early '90s, 
we went through some very turbulent times when it came to labor 
relations between the administrations and the respective unions. 

Howard is calm. He's intelligent. He's 
respectful, and he understands all sides of a problem. He's 
worked on the union side, and so he understands, I think, how to 
avoid unnecessary confrontation and to make sure that the seas 
remain as peaceful as possible when it comes to collective 
bargaining and the implementation of collective bargaining 
agreements . 

So, I wanted to just take the time to introduce a 
very fine appointee and a good friend, and urge his 
confirmation . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

We have your statement. That's part of the 
record. So, if you just want to make some short comments, I'm 
sure there may be a few questions. 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I just want to thank 
Assemblyman Steinberg. Darrell and I, as he stated, have been 
friends for 16 years. He's a wonderful Assemblyman, and I 
appreciate him showing up, taking the time today to come and 



44 

introduce me. 

You do have my statement and my biography. It's 
been supplied to you in advance of the hearing. 

Very briefly, without reiterating it, I've been 
practicing law since 1982. I started my career in state service 
with the Public Employment Relations Board. I spent about a 
year in private practice, and then from there I spent 15 years 
as a staff and managing attorney with the California State 
Employees Association. 

When I heard of the opportunity to come to the 
Department of Personnel Administration as its Chief Counsel, I 
was very excited. I talked with the Director, Marty 
Morgenstern, and immediately realized that it was a wonderful 
opportunity. 

So, I realize that after now spending time at 
DPA, that I've grown to really appreciate the complexities of 
collective bargaining in state service. I think that we've done 
a lot to calm the labor relations seas, and to establish strong 
and firm relationships with employee organizations, and to make 
sure that state government operates economically and 
efficiently. 

So, I appreciate the opportunity that Director 
Morgenstern has given me. I certainly appreciate the 
opportunity that the Governor has given me by making the 
appointment, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might 
have . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the status of the 
current negotiations between the employee unions and Cal PERS, 



45 

and the health care rates? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. We have proposed a — made 
a proposal to all of the 21 state bargaining units, ten of which 
have accepted the proposal, which is to pick up 50 percent of 
the premium increases that are scheduled to go into effect for 
health benefits on January 1st. 

The ten organizations that have agreed to the 
proposal are, if I can think of them, two, five, six, seven — 
these are all state bargaining units — two, five, six, seven, 
eight, twelve, thirteen, sixteen, eighteen and nineteen. I 
think that's all ten of them. 

All nine of the state bargaining units 
represented by CSEA have not yet agreed to the proposal. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the hangup? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: I believe that they would like 
more the employer to pick up more of the health premium 
increases. We, again, have proposed a 50 percent pick up, and 
they are proposing more than that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The ones that are left out, are 
they big groups or little groups? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: They're relatively large groups. 
CSEA represents two of the largest state bargaining units: 
Bargaining Unit One, which is the professional white-collar 
state employees, Bargaining Unit Four. Together, those two — 
Unit Four is clerical employees. Together, that comprises 
probably over 50,000 state employees. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you do? You pick off 
the small groups, and then that puts pressure on big groups, or 



46 

what? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: I think each group has 
independently evaluated our proposal and decided on its own 
whether they think it's good or bad. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How does group one, three, 
seven, nine, fifteen, and forty-six, they have to pay 50 percent 
of the increase, and groups thirteen, seventeen, and 
twenty-eight only have to pay 40 percent. How the hell would 
that work out? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm not certain. The proposal 
that's been agreed upon by the ten units that have agreed upon 
it is for the employer to pick up 50 percent. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Right, so the employee picks up 
50? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Right, the employee picks up the 
other 50. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, where does that leave the 
groups that haven't done it? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: It's a bad situation because the 
employees will pick up 100 percent of the increase without an 
agreement. The employees in those units will pick up 100 
percent of the increase without an agreement. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So it's 50 percent, take it or 
leave it, or what? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, it's our proposal — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know it's your proposal. 
That's not my question. 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, at the moment that's our 



47 

proposal, and we haven't modified it in any way. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Have you got any other 
proposals? There are other ways to handle things other than 
just paying. 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. Another component of the 
proposal is to establish, which we've already engaged in, a 
joint Labor Management Cost Containment Committee which will be 
comprised of both management representatives and labor 
representatives. They are — those units that want to 
participate in the joint Labor Management Committee, they'll be 
having their first meeting next week. I think the goal of the 
committee is to come up with proposals jointly that we can bring 
to Cal PERS that will both maintain existing level of benefits, 
maintain cost containment for health premiums, and take into 
consideration the costs that are passed on to employees as well. 

So, we're trying to work hand-in-glove with the 
employee organizations to develop proposals to go before Cal 
PERS to limit costs and to maintain benefit levels. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It seems to me you've got how 
many bargaining units, 21? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Twenty-one state bargaining units. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you cut a deal one 
bargaining unit at 50 percent, everybody else has got to follow 
or they pay 100 percent? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Seems like not a good way to do 
business for employee morale. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



48 

MR. SCHWARTZ: We think that it's a very good 
offer, and I can explain why. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Whatever the offer is, you pick 
off one bargaining unit, and everybody else is stuck with 
whatever maybe the weakest bargaining unit did, or — 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Get one Indian tribe to sign. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Exactly. 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Senator, in a broader sense, it's 
the dynamic of collective bargaining in state service. There's 
always going to be one bargaining unit that agrees to whatever 
you're proposing, whatever the state is proposing first. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And that can drive the engine, 
even though it's the smallest bargaining unit in the state? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: It has an impact on all the other 
organizations that have yet to come to an agreement. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know if you guys are 
the guys that do it or what, but basically there's problems, 
sometime, recruiting personnel in high urban cost areas. 
There's a problem getting personnel, probably, in part of 
Senator Knight's district if they're way out in the boonies. 

What do you do? Do you do like price 
differentials? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: The conventional solution are 
recruitment and retention differentials, which we have 
negotiated in many different units, depending upon the 
classification of employee and the labor market demand. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What are you doing about the 
tremendous shortage of medical personnel in the prison system? 



49 

MR. SCHWARTZ: To my knowledge, there are 
negotiated recruitment and retention differentials for nurses 
and related medical personnel in the Department of Corrections. 

It's a problem that we acknowledge, though. It 
doesn't entirely solve recruitment and retention problems by 
just giving them a bonus or a differential. 

We are in the process now of preparing for a new 
round of negotiations, and we'll be evaluating all the medical 
personnel classifications to determine whether there are 
additional differentials that need to be assigned to those 
classifications . 

I think just throwing money at the problem isn't 
the only solution. In state service, it's a difficult problem 
because it's not — the problem of attracting qualified 
employees isn't just a matter of paying them high salaries or 
benefits. They work in very, very difficult and dangerous 
environments. Sometimes they work in remote and, I hope not to 
offend anybody, unattractive districts in areas throughout state 
service. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Just as long as you don't 
include my district. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Did I miss something? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You had your chance to secede 
and form your own county, and it didn't work. 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Keeping good and qualified 
employees isn't just a matter of paying them high wages or 
providing them good benefits. It's a matter of making their 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



50 

working conditions better. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions, Senator Johnson? 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I wish you'd say, portions of 
the district. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That was your question? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No, I've got another question. 

It appears as though the Employment Retirement 
System, the Board just recently took action to increase the per 
diem for certain Board members $100 to $400. 

Are you supporting that? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: I can't tell you what our position 
is on that. I don't think that that's something that — 
actually, I think discussions — I don't know if we have an 
official position on it, but we are — 

MR. BUENROSTRO: Fred Buenrostro, Chief Deputy 



Director. 



We voted against those increases. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have a feeling on the 



legality. 



MR. BUENROSTRO: It's the same as our vote. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: That it's not legal? 
MR. BUENROSTRO: Yes. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: In other words, you might have 
been persuaded to vote for it had you believed. 

MR. BUENROSTRO: For the record, no. 

[Laughter. ] 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you aware that they're 



51 

issuing their own checks now? 

MR. BUENROSTRO: Yes, I am. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does any other agency get to do 
so that? Where does it come out, of the retirees* money or 
what? How do they issue checks? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: That's a good question. We're not 
entirely sure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's going on? 

MR. BUENROSTRO: They're drawing it on the Public 
Employees Retirement fund and issuing the checks out of the fund 
itself. 

MR. SCHWARTZ: There's an issue of law as to 
whether they have the authority to do that under Proposition 
162. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They've gotten somewhat 
arrogant. 

Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I have a question about health 
care. I know that people see different roles for what the state 
ought to be doing. 

How do you feel about reducing the health care 
costs by actually offering preventive services and benefits? I 
know that there's a lot of talk about that now, like diet plans 
and things like that. 

There's so many things that can be done for 
public employees other than just paying premiums. Do you put 
that into your negotiation package as well? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. In fact, that's the type of 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



52 

proposal, preventive care proposals, that will reduce health 
premium costs that we are wanting to explore in these joint 
Labor Management Health Benefit Committees. We would like to 
see those as components of health plans that are offered to 
state employees. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I am kind of interested in the 
negotiations you're doing, because there are two large groups, 
and they can have a real impact. 

What happens if you negotiate something. You've 
already negotiated with these ten groups and the eleven that are 
left, suppose you negotiate, you settle something with one, and 
then another one, and then another one? Will things be 
retroactive, or will it begin when the negotiation package is 
accepted? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: It's all subject to negotiations. 
If that's a circular answer, I'm sorry. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I know. Well, does it look 
promising? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, I think so. We're optimistic 
that ultimately we'll find a solution with all 21 bargaining 
units . 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Because this healthcare thing 
is a real big issue, and everybody knows that. But public 
employees, one of things that draws people in to positions where 
they don't make a huge salary, and they work in outlying 
districts — how's that, Pete — and other problems is the fact 
that they get good health care, they get good retirement. 
People forget that. 



53 

MR. SCHWARTZ: I understand that. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: I don't have any questions. 

When I first was introduced to this Committee, 
Carolyn here came in and brought the book in. She said we're 
going to have to confer with Howard Schwartz. 

I said, Howard Schwartz? I thought that was a 
guy who was a used car dealer in Inglewood. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. SCHWARTZ: I may have a relative I don't know 
about . 

SENATOR VINCENT: Anyway, I looked at the record, 
and I'm very impressed with the record you have with labor, and 
I think you'll do a great job. It's a pleasure meeting you. 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you, Senator. I feel the 
same. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here? 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, I have my wife with me here 
today, Katrina. We have a one-year-old son who we decided to 
leave at home. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, briefly. 

MR. BROAD: Mr. Chairman and Members, Barry 
Broad. 

I've known Mr. Schwartz for 25 years. We went to 
college together. We studied the bar together. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who knows him better, you or 
Steinberg? 



54 

MR. SCHWARTZ: Barry does. 

MR. BROAD: I do, and Howard is one of the most 
extraordinarily well balanced people I've ever met. He'll do a 
great job. He has done a great job. He will do a great job. 
It's a great appointment, and urge the confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next. 

MR. COPELAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 
Craig Copelan with the Professional Engineers in California 
Government . 

We're familiar with Mr. Schwartz's work at CSEA, 
and we're strongly in favor of his new position. 

Thank you. 

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Steve Baker with Aaron 
Read and Associates, representing the California Association of 
Highway Patrolmen, the CDF Firefighters, and the California 
Association of Professional Scientists. 

I come after Steinberg. We're all in support. 

Thank you. 

MR. FRIES: Tim Fries with CUSE, the California 
Union of Safety Employees. 

I'd just like to say that everybody holds him in 
high respect who's worked with him in his current position and 
with CSEA, and we wish him luck. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, move in nomination. 

Any other questions? Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 



55 



SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Kanette Aye. Senator Knight. 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 
SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you, sir. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 4:03 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



56 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

day of '^-^^^ ^.' , 2001. 
/ 




c 




' ,-,W 



EVELY^ J ./MIZAK r 
Shorthand Reporter 



410-R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 410-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 2 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2001 
1:42 P.M. 



411-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO , CAL I FORNI A 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2 001 
1:42 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR ROSS JOHNSON, Vice Chair 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR ED VINCENT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

SUSIE SWATT, Consultant to SENATOR JOHNSON 

TIM SHELLEY, Consultant to SENATOR KARNETTE 

CHRIS BURNS, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

CAROLYN ROBINSON, Consultant to SENATOR VINCENT 

ALSO PRESENT 

CURTIS L. CHILD, Director 
Department of Child Support Services 

SENATOR SHEILA KUEHL 

ASSEMBLY MEMBER DION ARONER 

LENNY GOLDBERG 
Children Now 

MARGARET PENA, Executive Director 
Child Support Directors Association 

MELANIE SNIDER 

Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc 

MILTON M. HYAMS, Director 

San Francisco Department of Child Support Services 



Ill 
INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

CURTIS CHILD, Director 

Department of Child Support Services 1 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR SHIELA KUEHL 1 

Statement in Support by 

ASSEMBLY MEMBER DION ARONER 1 

Background and Experience 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

How Department Saved $1 Million 5 

Cooperation of DAs 5 

San Diego Problem 5 

Timeline on Completion of Statewide 

Computer System 5 

Interim Plan until System Is in Place 6 

Fully Staffed 7 

Targeted Time for Transition 7 

Dealing with Complaining Parents 8 

How Much of $14 Billion Owed to Children 

Can Department Collect 9 

Motion to Confirm 10 

Witnesses in Support ; 

LENNY GOLDBERG 

Children Now 10 



IV 



MARGARET PENA, Executive Director 

Child Support Directors Association 10 

MELANIE SNIDER 

Association for Children for Enforcement of 

Support (ACES) 11 

MILTON M. HYAMS, Acting Director 

San Francisco Department of Child Support 

Services 11 

Committee Action 12 

Termination of Proceedings 12 

Certificate of Reporter 13 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees appearing 
today, Curtis Child, Department of Child Services. 

Senator Kuehl . 

SENATOR KUEHL: Thank you, Senator Burton. 

Senators, I am here to speak very briefly in 
favor, obviously, of the confirmation of Curt Child. I've known 
him for several years. I was one of the authors of the bills 
that reformed the child support enforcement system and created 
the department that Mr. Child has been serving as Director for 
almost a year now. 

He has already begun to implement all of the 
parts of our bills, I think, in exactly the fashion that we had 
hoped. Eleven of the counties have already been converted to 
county agencies, and I'm told that we've already saved over a 
million dollars from what they were spending as those eleven 
counties under the DAs in developing the state-of-the-art 
recommendations that we asked him to develop. 

I think he was the right guy when he started, and 
I definitely think he's the right guy now. I hope that you will 
confirm his appointment. 

ASSEMBLY MEMBER ARONER: Senator Burton and 
Members of the Committee, it's a great pleasure to recommend to 
you that you confirm Curt Child for the Director of Child 
Support Services. This is my donation to the cause. 

Curt was the Chief Consultant to our committee on 
the child support issue. As many of you know, he wrote most of 



the major legislation in the area. So for me, it really is an 
issue of having the person who wrote it, carry it out now, and I 
don't think that there's a better person who can do that for us. 

We've already made major steps forward. The most 
important thing from my perspective is that the federal 
government's beginning to feel comfortable with us for the first 
time that we might actually be able to meet our obligations 
under their statutes. 

So, it's a real honor and a pleasure to recommend 
that you confirm him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

Mr. Child, we have your statement which will be 
made part of the records. 

Why don't you just highlight a few things. 

MR. CHILD: Thank you, Senator Burton, Members of 
the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. 

One thing I just want to say, in addition to what 
I've already given you in the testimony, is that we really view 
the charge for the new Department of Child Support Services as 
one to establish a strong state-directed uniform child support 
program. And that's really what we're making all of our efforts 
directed to, so we don't have programs that are looking 
differently in different counties. We think that, as was 
envisioned with the initial legislation, that uniformity will 
indeed bring substantially greater collections in this program. 

If I can just say a couple things that we have 
established as our priority. One is to get the Department 



established. We've been able to put together an extremely 
talented executive team. We've got talents from both inside and 
outside state service, and both inside and outside the child 
support world that we think is very important to bring new 
views, new vision into the child support program that's been 
lacking. 

The other, I think, the primary priority for us 
now, as you know, we have an obligation to build a single 
statewide automation system in California, and we're currently 
incurring penalties from the federal government for not having 
that system up. And we are really looking toward not repeating 
the errors that happened when that prior effort to automate the 
program, and to balance the real pressure to implement that 
system quickly against the federal penalties so that we can 
really build a system that's not just quickly built, but one 
that will take us and the program into the future. 

I also did want to notice, as Senator Kuehl 
mentioned, we have begun transitioning the counties out of the 
district attorneys' offices into new, stand-alone Child Support 
Departments. We took advantage of a provision in the 
legislation to do that early. And Senator Burton, San Francisco 
was our first pioneer county to go. And as mentioned, we are 
realizing nearly a million dollars in savings just from that 
transition out of the district attorney's office to new 
stand-alone programs now, due in part to the indirect costs that 
were being charged by the district attorneys. 

We're also putting a strong emphasis on customer 
service in this program now. As we've gone back, and you 



probably remember the Los Angeles Times series that was highly 
critical of this program, and really looking at that, you can, I 
think, get a feel that a lot of that came from how we were 
treating the customers in this program: how we were treating 
moms, and how we were treating dads. 

To that end, we have allocated $25 million to the 
counties to deal specifically with customer service, which has 
meant 141 new positions, ombudsperson positions at the local 
level to ensure that complaints are getting resolved locally so 
you won't be seeing those complaints any time in the future in 
your offices. 

We've also required the counties to all put 
together plans now, customer service plans, that we're going to 
be looking for some of the best practices so that we can spread 
those throughout the program statewide. 

So, those are some of our major initiatives right 
now. We certainly discovered over the course of this past year 
that our problems are quite extraordinary, and we can't 
underestimate the difficulties in turning around this program. 
But I can say we are building, I think, a strong foundation and 
a consensus for the direction of where this program is going. 

I am convinced that the animosities that were 
created during this legislation and prior are really 
dissipating, and we've got the full support of our local 
partners and our federal partners. 

So, this is very difficult and important work, 
but I think we are making good progress now on getting it 
resolved. 



With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions 
you might have. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How did you save the million 
dollars? 

MR. CHILD: Just directly from the conversions 
out of the district attorneys' offices to the local offices. 
What we discovered is that district attorneys' offices were 
actually charging some fairly significant indirect costs to the 
program. Those will stay in the program now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are the DAs cooperating with 
you? 

MR. CHILD: Actually they are. It's actually 
working better than I thought it would be, with the exception of 
maybe one. It's been going quite smoothly, and I've been 
meeting with them as we do the transition. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Big county, small county? 

MR. CHILD: A larger county. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which county? 

MR. CHILD: San Diego has been a bit of a 
challenge. But other than that, I think it's going quite 
smoothly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you think you'll be able to 
work out the San Diego problem? 

MR. CHILD: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you don't, I think you 
should let us know. 

What's your time line on completion of the 
statewide computer system? 



MR. CHILD: We have an end date of December/ 
2005. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That long? 

MR. CHILD: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you do in the meantime? 

MR. CHILD: What we are now using, as the 
legislation required, a performance based procurement, which 
means that we've got to develop entirely up front what the 
specifications are going to be for the system. And then we need 
to start working with the vendors. We've now prequalified seven 
of the vendors. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess the question wasn't too 
clear. 

There's a reason you have a statewide computer 
system; right? 

MR. CHILD: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We don't have one. 

MR. CHILD: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What are we doing to do 
whatever the statewide system was going to do until we get it? 

MR. CHILD: We have a plan for an interim system. 
What we've worked out with the federal government is that we're 
going to be converting all of our counties who are on multiple 
systems to six systems that will be our interim systems. We've 
made all of those conversions except for nine, and those nine 
will happen over the course of the next about 16 months. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the feds — 

MR. CHILD: That's right, the feds have 



sanctioned that approach and will provide federal financial 
participation for maintenance and operation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What I think we'd like to know 
is if any counties are dragging their feet, because Senator 
Johnson was also very instrumental in getting very strong 
support for this when it was in the Senate. 

And one, we don't want it to fail, clearly, but 
we definitely don't want it to fail because people who kind of 
lost some turf are dragging their feet. 

Are you staffed up? Are you on target to be 
fully staffed? 

MR. CHILD: That's right. By June, we will be 
fully staffed. We had about 75 positions when I first started. 
We have 150 positions right now, 33 that we should have in the 
next six weeks, and then by the end we'll have our full 240 
positions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The timeline for transition to 
county office, in other words, you're on target? 

MR. CHILD: We actually moved eleven early. We 
took the opportunity to move eleven last year. We called our 
pioneer counties so we could get a feel of what are going to be 
the issues as we make the transitions. 

We'll have about three-quarters of the state's 
cases transitioned by the end. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The bill got its genesis with 
the fact that parents, and primarily well over 98 percent would 
be the father, was not stepping up to the plate, so to speak, to 
make payments. 



But in certain areas, we also hear from fathers 
that they're getting knocked either for something they didn't 
really owe, or that they really have paid it, or it's really 
like a hardship. 

How do you deal with that aspect of it? I guess 
it's too early to determine whether that's a real problem for 
you yet, but it turns into a problem for us a lot of times. 

MR. CHILD: Exactly. And that's what I was 
speaking of. We certainly saw that as something we had to move 
on immediately, and that's what we are putting into our customer 
service initiative, is whether those concerns were legitimate or 
not, they weren't getting resolved. So, we have now 141 new 
positions that's directed specifically at resolving those new 
positions. 

That $25 million allocation went out in October. 
The counties are just in the process of bringing those persons 
on. 

So it ranged in counties. I think San Francisco 
got three or four of those new positions; Los Angeles got 38 of 
those positions. It's specifically to deal with complaint 
resolution at the local level. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Actually most of the 
complaints, at least that I heard, they were not from the urban 
areas. I think there was like a big movement in Solano, as I 
recall . 

MR. CHILD: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, they used to be kind of 
rural and now they're not, but areas like that as opposed to 



L.A. or Orange. 

MR. CHILD: We made sure every single county got 
one of these positions, at least one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Out of idle curiosity, have you 
got any feeling as to how much of the so-called 14 billion owed 
to the children realistically we have chance to get? 

MR. CHILD: What we've done is, we've hired one 
of the leading researchers in this area, Elaine Sorenson from 
the Urban Institute, to do that work as the legislation required 
for us. We are going to have, I think, a very good sense. Her 
work will be completed about June of this year, that we were 
hoping to see as we start rolling out our regulations that are 
due in July. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much you write off? 

MR. CHILD: That's right. 

The first piece of the work that we asked her to 
do is, as we're setting performance standards, to do an analysis 
for us of how much we think maybe socio-economic, demographic 
features affect the counties' performance in the program. And 
quite interestingly, what she came back with was, there is 
little correlation between what the demographics in the county 
are and the county's performance, which is suggesting to us that 
this is, in very much large part, a management issue that we've 
got to look at, as opposed to trying to create standards around 
various regions of the state. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 



10 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I don't think so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: I'm just amazed that he's so 
well prepared. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Johnson 
without objection. 

Do you have anybody here you wants to introduce? 

MR. CHILD: I actually have my wife here with me 
today, and I think there were a few people that want to say 
something. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You've got to figure when 
you've got the votes, we don't want anybody screwing it up. 

Witnesses in support briefly. 

MR. GOLDBERG: Lenny Goldberg on behalf of 
Children Now. We worked very closely on the child support reform 
that was carried by Senator Burton and now Senator Kuehl . 

Curt has done a phenomenal job of putting 
together the Department from scratch, and dealing with 
automation and many issues. 

As advocates, we're supposed to be never 
satisfied, but we're really happy with the way it's gone so far. 

Thank you. 

MS. PENA: Margaret Pena, Executive Director with 
the newly formed Child Support Directors Association, 
representing the 58 child support directors at the local level. 

We're proud to support Mr. Child's confirmation 



11 

here today. In the past year, he has clearly laid out a vision 
for the new Department, and has consistently included the 
counties in the decision making processes around developing the 
new procedures that we're going to be following. We look 
forward to a long and successful relationship with Mr. Child. 

MS. SNIDER: Melanie Snider with ACES, 
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support. 

We are representative of custodial parents, and 
we are also in great support of Mr. Child's confirmation. He 
has worked very closely with the parent groups, including us in 
all the decision making processes. We have been very involved 
with the customer service allocation project, and also the 
Policy P-3 Project. 

I can't say enough about the innovative ideas 
that Mr. Child has come up with, and we strongly support his 
confirmation. 

MR. HYAMS: I'm Milt Hyams. I'm acting Director 
of the Department of Child Support Services in San Francisco. 
We were the first pioneer county. 

And I will say this, that if Curt and his 
Department support the rest of the counties as they have us, the 
transition from a DA-operated program to a local departmentally 
operated program will be seamless. 

One other comment, too, with regard to the 
customer service. We look forward to implementing that. Now, 
we considered that to be an important initiative in the 
transition from a law enforcement program to a service program. 

And we would like to see Curt continue those 



12 



initiatives . 



Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 
SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 
SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
MR. CHILD: Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:00 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



13 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



j ) " day of ^ 



l/Bii* 



4_Si'l 



if- 



, 2001. 



[ ^EVELYN J./MIZAK N ; 
— -" Shorthand Reporter 



411-R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 41 1-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

^B 2 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2001 
1:42 P.M. 



412-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2001 
1:42 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR ROSS JOHNSON, Vice Chair 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR ED VINCENT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

SUSIE SWATT, Consultant to SENATOR JOHNSON 

TIM SHELLEY, Consultant to SENATOR KARNETTE 

CHRIS BURNS, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

CAROLYN ROBINSON, Consultant to SENATOR VINCENT 

ALSO PRESENT 

STEPHAN CASTELLANOS 
State Architect 

ROCKY BURKS 

Coalition of Disability Access Professionals 

KATHRYN P. JETT, Director 
Alcohol and Drug Programs 

SENATOR DEBORAH ORTIZ 

TRISHA STANIONIS 

California Association of Alcohol and Drug 

Program Executives 

HOLLY MITCHELL 

Office of Women's Health Advisory Council 



Ill 



SUSAN BLACKS HER 

California Association of Addiction and Recovery Resources 

MARCELLA S PENCE 

Berkeley Addiction Treatment Services 

TERR I THOMAS 

California Association of Public Hospitals and Health 

Facilities 

CHARLEEN MILBURN 

California Medical Association 

FRANK RAMIREZ 
American GI Forum 
Cafe de California 

BILL DEMERS 

County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

STEPHAN CASTELLANOS 

State Architect 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Delays in Review and Approval 

Process for School Construction 3 

Motion to Confirm 3 

Witness in Support: 

ROCKY BURKS 

Coalition of Disability Access Professionals 3 

Committee Action 4 

KATHRYN P. JETT, Director 

Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 4 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR DEBORAH ORTIZ 4 

Background and Experience 5 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Plans to Expand Adequate Treatment 

Capacity 6 

Witnesses in Support: 

TRISHA STANIONIS 

California Association of Alcohol and Drug 

Program Executives 7 

HOLLY MITCHELL 

Office of Women' s Health Advisory Council 7 



V 



SUSAN BLACKSHER 

California Association of Addiction and 

Recovery Resources 7 

MARCELLA S PENCE 

Berkeley Addiction Treatment Services 7 

TERRI THOMAS 

California Association of Public Hospitals and 

Health Facilities 7 

CHARLEEN MILBURN 

California Medical Association 7 

FRANK RAMIREZ 

American GI Forum 

Cafe de California 7 

BILL DEMERS 

County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators 7 

Motion to Confirm 8 

Committee Action 8 

Termination of Proceedings 8 

Certificate of Reporter 9 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Stephan Castellanos, State 
Architect. 

MR. CASTELLANOS: Good afternoon, Senator Burton 
and Honorable Members of the Rules Committee. 

I'm very honored to be here today requesting your 
support of my appointment by Governor Davis to serve as State 
Architect. 

The history of the State Architect extends back 
to the creation of the Capitol itself, and continues through the 
design and construction of many structures that now represent 
California's past. The position was founded on the premise 
that the design of the built environment represents our values 
regarding government and community in the buildings that become 
our legacy for future generations. 

In recent times, the State Architect has taken on 
new roles and responsibilities, but is no less involved with the 
policies that guide California's design and construction 
efforts. New challenges and opportunities have presented 
themselves since 1850. The energy crisis requires new thinking 
in how we build and use resources. The critical need for an 
educated population and workforce demands that we better 
understand the effects of classroom environments on teaching and 
learning, and we must increasingly ensure physical and program 
access to all of California's citizens so they can contribute 
fully to the continued greatness of this state. 

I pledge to you that I will be tireless in 



ensuring that California's public schools are safe and 
accessible, and also represent the best we can do to create 
schools that support teaching and learning and are sustainable 
centers of the communities. I will be tireless in my efforts to 
guarantee full and complete access for all of our citizens, and 
to assure that California provides the broadest range of 
opportunity in all places when any of us enjoy access as a 
right. 

Equally, it will be my goal to be a full partner 
in making California a great public client, one that is aware of 
the transformational impact it can have on the design and 
construction marketplace and one that prudently employs that 
influence to grade schools and public buildings that contribute 
to the health and vitality of their communities. 

I believe that no other time in our history have 
creative solutions been so critically needed. Architecture is 
not only about style or taste, or buildings in public places. 
Rather, it is about the experience of each of us within the 
built environment. It is about our use of resources, and equity 
and fairness as we accommodate the needs of Californians so that 
all of us may contribute to our fullest capacity as citizens of 
my home, this great State of California. 

Thank you for the this opportunity. It is a 
great honor, and I promise to give you the best that I can 
give. 

With your indulgence, I'd like to introduce my 
wife, Linda Duribe, who is sitting right behind me here. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Your office, along with others, 



are responsible for reviewing and approving school construction 
projects, and there's been a lot of complaints lately about 
delays in the review and approval of the school process program. 

Do you have plans to expedite? 

MR. CAS TE LLANOS : Absolutely. We've been meeting 
with school districts up and down the state, and talking about 
timing, timely response. We are adding a broader range of 
services and starting to work with local building departments, 
among other things, to try to create more opportunities for 
school districts to choose different paths and alternative paths 
for school construction approval. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any questions? Moved. 

Witnesses, briefly, in support. 

MR. BURKS: Rocky Burks, member of the Coalition 
of Disability Access Professionals in support, and I'm also here 
representing my agency, Independent Living Services of Northern 
California, and co-sponsor of Senate Bill SB 1242 that's going 
to bring our building codes up to federal compliance. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Any witnesses in opposition? Hearing none, 
Secretary call the roll on approval. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 



SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. CASTELLANOS: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Kathy Jett, Director of 
Alcohol and Drug Programs. 

MS. JETT: Good afternoon, Senator Burton, 
Members of the Committee. 

It is an pleasure to be before you this afternoon 
to discuss my qualifications. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think you want to be 
introduced first by Senator Ortiz. 

SENATOR ORTIZ: Thank you. 

Certainly I'm honored here to be introducing our 
nominee today, Kathy Jett. As many of you know, she began her 
career as a staff member, assisting people in recovery. She 
brings real world experience to actually addressing a very 
challenging issue that the state is going to, hopefully, be 
dealing with in a more innovative manner now that Prop. 36 
requires implementation. 

But she also has a balanced history of bringing 
in drug and alcohol program consultant work. The Division of 
Drug Abuse, currently known as the Department of Alcohol and 
Drug Programs, after ten years in various roles, she recently is 
coming to us as a result of working under the Attorney General, 
Crime and Violence Prevention Center. I met her as she was 



responsible for the Office of Women's Health, and took a very 
key role of really working through a lot of bureaucracy and 
implementing a program that I felt very strongly about that 
addressed women's issues, health issues. 

She is one of the unique public candidates that 
we will see in our time. She's very pragmatic. You know, makes 
government work for all, and really, I think, has the 
opportunity to provide innovation. 

I really look forward to serving with her in our 
latest challenge with implementing Prop. 36. I wholeheartedly 
endorse her. I think we should all be proud of her candidacy, 
and I would respectfully ask that the Members of this Committee 
strongly support her as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Kathy. 

MS. JETT: Thank you, Senator. I'll start 
again. Thank you, Senator. 

It's a pleasure to be before you this afternoon 
to talk about my qualifications to be the Director of the 
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. 

I think the strongest statement that I'd like 
point out is that I've served both in public health and law 
enforcement, which I think gives me a unique perspective at a 
time when we're implementing a very contentious Proposition 36. 

I've served two tours with the Attorney General's 
office, one for ten years, assisting them in developing demand 
reduction programs for alcohol and drug abuse, gang prevention, 
and domestic violence. I was asked to return under now Attorney 
General Lockyer as Director of Crime and Violence Prevention, 



which further expanded my experience in terms of working and 
being very sensitive to the issues and challenges of law 
enforcement, and appreciation for community-based policing and 
such. 

I then returned to the Health Department. I 
served two terms in the Health Department, one, as Senator Ortiz 
mentioned, as a drug abuse consultant in then the Division of 
Drug Abuse, which became the Department of Alcohol and Drug 
Programs, and currently now serving as Director of Alcohol and 
Drug Programs . 

My major focus is on Prop. 36 right now, as you 
can much imagine. I ask and will need your support in 
implementing that provision and the laws associated with Prop. 
36. 

I ask for your support, and if you have any 
questions . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions at this time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I had one thing. 

I would like to know what you're going to do to 
expand adequate treatment capacity, because I'm concerned about 
that. 

MS. JETT: It's currently one of the major 
challenges of 36. What we're trying to do is move funding 
quickly, which we've already done. We've moved $60 million to 
the counties so that they could plan and prepare for the 
implementation of 36 July 1. 



We're currently working with counties in 
providing technical assistance to those that need them. 

And lastly, we are expanding our certification 
and licensing staff so that we're able to turn around 
certification applications quickly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, briefly. 

MS. STANIONIS: I'm Trish Stanionis. I 
represent the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program 
Executives, and I'm in support. 

MS. MITCHELL: Holly Mitchell, representing the 
Office of Women's Health Advisory Council, in strong support. 

MS. BLACKSHER: Susan Blacksher, California 
Association of Addiction Recovery Resources in support. 

MS. SPENCE: Marcella Spence, from Berkeley 
Addiction Treatment Services, Bay Area, California, in support. 

MS. THOMAS: Terri Thomas on behalf of California 
Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems in support. 

MS. MILBURN: Charlene Milburn with the 
California Medical Association in support. 

MR. RAMIREZ: Frank Ramirez, representing the 
American GI Forum and Cafe de California in strong support of 
ler appointment. 

MR. DEMERS: Bill Demers, representing the County 
Alcohol Drug Program Administrators Association in strong 
support for Kathy's confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition. 

Hearing none, do you have anybody you want to 
introduce, Kathy. 



8 

MS. JETT: Thank you, Senator, yes. My brother 
and mother traveled from the east coast today. There's my 
Drother and my mother, Lena. My west coast family, which is 
Ylary Hancock, and my partner, Joan Hancock, and Joan's sister, 
flora, in the back aisle. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Kathy. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 1:52 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

, 2001. 



c*0 

^ day of 





1/1*.$*^ 



:zak 

lorthand Reporter 



■i 



412-R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 412-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATE^RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 2 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2001 
1:36 P.M. 



413-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2001 
1:36 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR ROSS JOHNSON, Vice Chair 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR ED VINCENT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

SUSIE SWATT, Consultant to SENATOR JOHNSON 

TIM SHELLEY, Consultant to SENATOR KARNETTE 

CHRIS BURNS, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

CAROLYN ROBINSON, Consultant to SENATOR VINCENT 

ALSO PRESENT 

HAROLD BARKER, Member 

California State Lottery Commission 

JOAN WILSON, Director 

California State Lottery Commission 

AMY B. DEAN, Member 
California Community Colleges 
Board of Governors 

JUDY MICHAELS 

California Federation of Teachers 

DAVID HAWKINS 

Faculty Association of California Community Colleges 



CATHERINE L. UNGER, Member 
California Community Colleges 
Board of Governors 



Ill 
INDEX 

Pa g e 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

HAROLD BAKER, Member 

California State Lottery Commission 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Money Lottery Spends on 

Gambling Addiction and Gambling 

Problems 3 

Percentage of Money that Goes to 

Helping Addicted Gamblers 3 

Response by JOAN WILSON, Director 

California State Lottery 3 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

More than 50 Percent of Lottery 

Money Going to Prizes 4 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Length of Time Employed by 

Shorenstein Company 5 

Motion to Confirm 6 

Committee Action 6 

AMY B. DEAN, Member 

California Community Colleges 

Board of Governors 6 

Vision for Community Colleges 7 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Outreach on Cal Grant Program 8 



IV 



Witnesses in Support; 

JUDITH MICHAELS 

California Federation of Teachers 9 

DAVID HAWKINS 

Faculty Association 

California Community Colleges 9 

Motion to Confirm 9 

Committee Action 10 

CATHERINE L. UNGER, Member 

California Community Colleges 

Board of Governors 10 

Statement on Role of Community Colleges 10 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Type of Students 11 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Relationship of Permanent 

Faculty to Temporary or Part-time 

Faculty 12 

Need for More Student Counseling 12 

Witnesses in Support: 

JUDITH MICHAELS 

California Federation of Teachers 13 

DAVID HAWKINS 

Community College Faculty Association 13 

Motion to Confirm 13 

Committee Action 14 

Termination of Proceedings 14 

Certificate of Reporter 15 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees 
appearing today, Harold Barker, member of the California State 
Lottery Commission. 

MR. BARKER: Pardon me for being hesitant. I'm 
just unfamiliar with the process. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're now in your process. Go 
ahead, sir. 

MR. BARKER: Mr. Chairman, Senators, and staff, 
good afternoon. I'm Hal Barker, Sheriff of El Dorado County, 
and appointed Commissioner of the California State Lottery. 

I've been a career law enforcement officer for 42 
years, beginning in 1959 in Santa Paula, California, where I 
started as a patrolman, and frankly where I grew up, and rose to 
the rank of captain. 

I was then hired by Sheriff John McDonald as the 
Chief Deputy Sheriff in San Mateo County, where I rose to the 
rank of Assistant Sheriff, second in command. During that time, 
I served for several years as Police Chief at San Francisco 
International Airport. 

After an unsuccessful bid to become Sheriff of 
San Mateo County, I worked for Milton Meyer and Company, now 
known as the Shorenstein Company for Walter Shorenstein as Chief 
of Security for a year. Then my yearning to re-enter my real 
profession caused me to apply and be selected as Police Chief in 
Folsom, the post I held for 13 years. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you work with Lou Gerial. 



his boss. 



boss. 



MR. BARKER: Yes, I did, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How did he find you? 

MR. BARKER: Well, I think he liked me. I was 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He always acted like he was the 



MR. BARKER: I know that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay. 

MR. BARKER: My yearning to re-enter my real 
profession caused me to apply and be selected as Police Chief in 
Folsom, and I served there for 13 years, resigning to accept an 
appointment as Sheriff in El Dorado County, a position to which 
I was subsequently elected, and I'm now serving the last two 
years of my elected term. 

My wife is deceased. I have two children: 
Russell, who is a retired Major in the United States Air Force, 
or from the Air Force; Terry, who is a Deputy District Attorney 
in Contra Costa County. 

During my career, I graduated from L.A. State 
College with a Bachelor of Science Degree, and USC with a 
Master's Degree. I'm a graduate of the FBI National Academy, 
and my colleagues on the Commission have just seen fit to elect 
me as the Vice Chair. 

I'm enjoying my service on the Lottery 
Commission, and with your blessing, I'd like to continue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

Do you know how much money that the Lottery 
Commission spends, if any, on the problems of gambling addiction 



and compulsive gamblers? 

MR. BARKER: Not exactly, sir, no. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do they spend anything? 

MR. BARKER: They spend some money. They're 
concerned about that problem. They work with Gambling 
Anonymous. They have a hot line to talk about gambling 
problems. 

We talk about those problems from time to time at 
the Commission, what we can do to help ease those problems. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It would be helpful to us if 
you could come let us know exactly what percentage. 

MR. BARKER: There are several members of the 
Lottery staff here. I could check with them and see if I can 
get an answer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Anybody have an answer. 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much? 

MS. WILSON: Fifty thousand dollars. We 
supplement the committee on that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't you come up, ma'am. 

MS. WILSON: My name is Joan Wilson. I'm the 
Director of the Lottery. And I've only been on board about six 
months, but in that time we've come out with a brochure. And 
those were some of the first questions that I asked. 

This is an organization that was formed but could 
not continue on with their work because they needed more money. 
So, we have supplemented them about $50,000. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which organization? 



MS. WILSON: It's Gambling Anonymous. It has a 
1-800 number with an Board of Directors that deal only with 
compulsive gambling. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: These are questions that are 
probably not fair to ask the Sheriff, but probably will be asked 
of you in the budget hearings. They deal with where you do your 
advertising; is it more in low income neighborhoods than others, 
and things of that sort. They would, at least in my judgment, 
would be more left to the Budget Committee then this. 

MS. WILSON: I have two pamphlets on that that I 
brought with me, if you'd like to have them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sure. 

MS. WILSON: This was a study that we did shortly 
after I came in that shows the race, the sex, and the age of our 
players. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about the economic 
situation? 

MS. WILSON: Yes, that is included in these, too. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We'd like to see that. Thank 
you very much. 

Any questions of the Sheriff? Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I noticed on the web site that 
there's more than 50 percent going for prizes. I know the law 
says only 50 percent, but there's 52.5 percent going to prizes. 

Can you explain what happened there? 

MR. BARKER: I know that the law says 50 percent, 
and why it's over 50 percent, I can't explain. I certainly did 
not think it was. I would think we'd be — unless there's some 



real reason not to restrict it by the law, and I'm surprised to 
hear that, frankly. 

I don't look at our web site. Maybe I should. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, I think since the law 
says 50 percent for prizes, because, you know, the rest of the 
money is supposed to go to schools. 

MR. BARKER: It could be that with Super Lotto 
Plus, we might be just a bit over, and we know that we're going 
to come back within range. So, it might be over just at the 
moment . 

But of all people in the world, the Lottery needs 
to follow the law. We're clearly under the microscope. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Especially with law 
enforcement on board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any of your family here? 

MR. BARKER: No, they're not. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long did you work for 



Shorenstein? 



MR. BARKER: One year, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You had enough of Walter, or 



what? 



MR. BARKER: Actually, I just yearned to be back 
at my business of law enforcement. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yearned to be free. 

MR. BARKER: Well, Walter was a tough guy to work 
for, you know? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Very well. 

MR. BARKER: Everyday that I worked there, he 



thought he was paying me too much money, and he didn't bother 
not telling me every single day. And I think he was saddened 
when I left. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Probably was. He's a tough man 
but a fair man, unless you're Douglas. 

In any event, witnesses in support? Witnesses in 
opposition? 

Hearing none, moved by Senator Vincent. 
Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Sheriff. 

MR. BARKER: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Amy Dean, appointee to the 
California Community Colleges, Board of Governors. 

We have your statement that is entered into the 
record. Why don't you just comment on how you see the role of 
the community colleges in the state education. 

MS. DEAN: Sure. 



Well, thank you. 

I want to just say that I feel that the community 
college system is an enormously critical part of California's 
future. I think of community colleges/ that component of higher 
education/ in a way in which Harvard Professor William Julius 
Wilson refers to equalizing institutions. In other words, 
institutions that help to create engines for social mobility and 
economic mobility for people, and particularly given their broad 
capacity for access. They're an important/ important part in 
mobility for our state's working people. 

In particular, given the fact that the new 
economy places a primacy emphasis on intellectual capital/ and 
it not only demands skills, but state-of-the-art skills, it 
really becomes now an issue that access to education 
increasingly is important for leaders in California to focus on, 
I think, for two key reasons. 

The first is that the most important capital 
investment that states and regions can make to help businesses 
be successful is investment in educating a regional and state 
workforce . 

The second point is that given the new economy's 
emphasis on skills and state-of-the-art skills, ensuring that 
our economy is broadly shared, the prosperity of that economy is 
broadly shared, requires then that access be a very, very 
important piece. Higher education, access to higher education 
is an important piece for our state's population. 

So, given the fact that we no longer have an 
economy that depends on the strength of one's back and the 



8 

dexterity of one's hands, access to education is key. And the 
entry point into the educational mainstream, higher education 
mainstream, is really our community college system. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions, Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: You say the right things. I 
like what I hear. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are the community colleges 
doing a fair amount of either outreach or publicity on the cal 
Grant program so that students understand that this program's 
available, and what they might be able to do? 

MS. DEAN: You know, I don't think I can fairly 
answer the question in terms of to what extent is the system 
doing a comprehensive job. I don't feel that I can, in 
fairness, describe what they do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are they doing anything? 

MS. DEAN: Yeah, they do. I think that the key 
issue, though, is that there is a board, and speaking for myself 
in particular, that outreach is so critically important for the 
reasons that I spoke about earlier. 

Access to skills and knowledge in this new 
economy becomes the defining characteristic between who wins and 
who loses in this economy. Our commitment as a board, and my 



commitment personally to ensuring that communities of color, lo*-. 
income communities/ that people have access, anybody who's a 
living, breathing person of appropriate age. It's got to be a 
huge priority for any player in California who is concerned 
about social and economic equity. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We enacted this program, and 
what I would suggest is, at your next board meeting or whatever, 
you find out from the staff what they're doing to get the word 
out to the high schools. And especially, I would think, as far 
as community college is concerned, the high schools that send 
most of the kids, or the type of high schools that most of the 
kids are getting into community college. 

MS. DEAN: I think it's a great point. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here 
that you want to introduce? 

MS. DEAN: No, I don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 

MS. MICHAELS: Judith Michaels, California 
Federation of Teachers. 

We are here to support the confirmation. 

MR. HAWKINS: David Hawkins with the Faculty 
Association, California Community Colleges, also in strong 
support. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 

Hearing none, I'll move the nomination. 
Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 



10 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Amy 

MS. DEAN: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Catherine Unger. 

We've got your statement, so if you could tell us 
what you consider the role of the community colleges in the 
future of the state? 

MS. UNGER: Well, I think the role of the 
community college is multi. We have too many and so many roles. 

And I think one of the things that I want to do 
as a board member is to try to make sure that we perform those 
roles well. 

One of the most important things to me is the 
idea that when students come to our colleges, at whatever point, 
some students come and know that they are going to transfer to a 
four-year institution. But some students come just to take a 
few classes and to try it all out. 

I think it's important that both our faculty and 
our counselors recognize some of these students and encourage 
them to take the proper classes, to make sure that they have 



11 

access to Cal Grants, or to whatever financial aid, so that they 
can continue with their education, transfer, and become a 
productive member of society. 

The other thing that I think is so important is 
some of the retraining that we do of people who are already in 
the workforce. And training them for better jobs, giving them 
skills so that they can get higher salaries, and so forth. 

So, those are just a couple of things. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You mentioned some of the 
people just come to see what it's like. Are you talking about 
younger students, or are you talking about people are just kind 
of killing time and taking a couple of courses? 

MS. UNGER: Well, it's really -- it's all kinds 
of students. It's not just one. I mean, it could be somebody 
who's leaving high school who really doesn't know what they're 
going to do and say, gee, I'll take a couple classes. 

Could be someone who has a part-time job, and 
then goes and takes a class or two, and then, all of a sudden, 
gets turned on by their education and said, you know, let's 
complete the two years and transfer. 

So, it isn't one kind of student, I guess. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 



12 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I don't think you mentioned 
the relationship of permanent faculty to temporary or 
part-timers. Do you have a notion about that? 

MS. UNGER: That's actually something that we're 
spending a lot of time working on. And we are really trying to 
make sure that the part-time faculty is properly compensated. 
And we want to make sure — so, we're working on studies. I 
think there's a CPAC study that's already out in draft form that 
we're waiting to see. 

So, it's a very large problem, and we're spending 
a lot of time studying it, and hopefully, come up with some 
conclusions this year, because I know it's a problem that's 
existed for many years. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I think if we had more 
full-time faculty, the students would have more counseling as 
well . 

MS. UNGER: Right, although there are some 
part-time faculty who are experts in their own field. 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm saying 
there's a role for part-time as well. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Oh, sure. I was just 
thinking, though, one of the problems that students have is 
finding a counselor when they need one. And if they're 
part-time, you've got to run to your other job. 

MS. UNGER: One of the things that we're working 
on, though, is, you know, office hours for part-time, because 
that has been one of the problems, that the part-time faculty is 
only paid for the time they spend in class. 



13 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Right. 

MS. UNGER: But they're also compensated for time 
spent outside of class, some time spent out of class, but that 
helps as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you bring any family 
members with you? 

MS. UNGER: No, I didn't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? Same 
cast. 

MS. MICHAELS: Judy Michaels, California 
Federation of Teachers in support of the confirmation. 

MR. HAWKINS: Again, David Hawkins with the 
Community College Faculty Association. 

And we'd also like to commend Governor Davis for 
the quality of appointees he's made to our board. They've 
become much more engaged and active in policy development. 
We're very appreciative of their contributions. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Governor is the education 
governor. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I think he might want to 
consider appointing someone who'd actually attended a California 
community college. 

Don't answer. It's just a rhetorical question. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you like a rhetorical 
answer? 

All right, other witnesses in opposition? 

Move the nomination. Secretary, call the roll. 



14 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 1:56 P.M.] 
— 00O00-- 




15 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



i 
v. 







ft S' f <' 



••-EVELYN J.'MIZAK 



Shorthand' Reporter 



413-R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 413-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 2 " rr, f 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2001 
1:35 P.M. 



414-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2001 
1:35 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR ROSS JOHNSON, Vice Chair 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR ED VINCENT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

SUSIE SWATT, Consultant to SENATOR JOHNSON 

TIM SHELLEY, Consultant to SENATOR KARNETTE 

CHRIS BURNS, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

CAROLYN ROBINSON, Consultant to SENATOR VINCENT 

ALSO PRESENT 

ANTHONY A. LAMARQUE, Warden 
Salinas Valley State Prison 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

MARC BAUTISTA 

California State Employees Association 

GLENN DUEGAW, Vice President 
Salinas Valley State Prison Chapter 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

ANTHONY A. LAMARQUE, Warden 

Salinas Valley State Prison 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Confiscation of Drugs 1 

How Drugs Get into Prisons 2 

Amount of Time at Salinas Valley 

State Prison 4 

Impact of High Housing Costs on 

Recruitment and Retention of Staff 4 

Exploration of Ways to Mandate 

Classes in Substance Abuse, Parenting, and 

Re-entry Prior to Release 5 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Prevention of Recidivism 6 

Witnesses in Support: 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 7 

MARC BAUTISTA 

California State Employees Association 8 

GLENN DUEGAW, Vice President 

Salinas Valley Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 10 

Motion to Confirm 11 

Committee Action 12 



IV 



Termination of Proceedings 12 

Certificate of Reporter 13 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Anthony A. Lamarque, Warden, 
Salinas Valley State Prison. 

We have your official statement as part of the 
record. Maybe you could just highlight how you see your job. 

I'd like to compliment you on your statement, and 
how you put both the short-term and long-term goals in both 
public safety, drug interdiction, et cetera. 

So, why don't you just briefly comment, and I'm 
sure Members may have some questions. 

MR. LAMARQUE: First of all, thank you, Senators, 
for the opportunity to be here today. 

My career started 27 years ago as correctional 
officer where I worked through the ranks: sergeant, lieutenant, 
captain, associate warden, chief deputy warden, and for the past 
20 months, the Warden at Salinas Valley State Prison. 

I have been fortunate to work through the ranks, 
and having worked almost all custody levels, from minimum, 
medium, to maximum security, to include special housing units 
like protective custody units, secure housing units, ad. seg. 
and management control units. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I read that — and I don't know 
what the timeframe was — that you confiscated a thousand grams 
of marijuana. 

I never heard of a gram of marijuana. About two 
joints or something? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Oh, no. That's quite a bit. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: A gram of marijuana? 

MR. LAMARQUE: We've had a thousand, I believe, 
grams of marijuana. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that. 

I read in a book, a gram of cocaine was something 
about like that, and a gram of marijuana would be, what, about 
five joints, give or take? 

SENATOR VINCENT: About three. 

MR. LAMARQUE: Actually, prison joints, it'd 
probably be about seven. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And then 85 grams of black tar 
heroin. 

Do you have any idea how that stuff gets in? 
There's two schools of thought. Some gets in through the 
visitors, and some gets in through employees. 

MR. LAMARQUE: I would say the majority of the 
drugs come through the visiting, and secondary I would say 
through packages and stuff like that. Most of the drugs that 
you're talking about, we've caught those coming through 
packages, large volume through packaging. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mail or packages that visitors 
bring? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Packages that visitors mail into 
the institution. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It would seem they're not too 
smart, because they figure you go through the packages, right? 

MR. LAMARQUE: That's in our favor sometimes, 
yes. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: That they aren't too smart. 

Would the mail packets like have a legitimate 
return address, or it could be just a bogus one, then the 
prisoner says, I don't even know whoever this person is that 
sent it, or what? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Yeah, normally that's what 
happens, is that the inmates always, or a majority of the 
Time they would say that they had no knowledge of the drug 
coming in. 

But our intelligence has been working pretty good 
lately, where we actually have some court convictions last year 
on catching these guys bringing the stuff in. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The guys bringing it in, 
yes . 

MR. LAMARQUE: Through the package or visiting, 
because of our monitoring system that we have, and going through 
the mails, and monitoring the stuff. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about, have you had any 
experience with the employees? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Oh, yeah, 27 years. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you catch them how? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Usually what happens is that the 
inmate will turn them in, or some other inmate source will say, 
so-and-so's bringing the stuff in. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right, thank you. 

You've been at Salinas as the Warden for 20 
months . 

MR. LAMARQUE: Twenty months, yes. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: And it's at Salinas? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Salinas Valley, actually it's in 
Soledad, next to the Correctional Training Facility. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Got it. 

Were you there in another capacity before you 
were Warden? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Yeah. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long have you been there? 

MR. LAMARQUE: I was at Salinas Valley only as a 
Warden for the past 20 months. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, were you able to see, and 
probably even 2 months would do it, but the tremendous 
explosion in the cost of housing down there as a result of 
pressures from the Silicon Valley, where home builders are now 
building there for people there? What kind of impact does that 
have on your staff either financially or even morale-wise, 
unless they were there for 15 years and bought a house, then 
they have trouble buying the house. 

MR. LAMARQUE: I've been in the area for over 30 
years, and I've seen a lot. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you buy a lot of land on 
the outskirts of town? 

[Laughter. ] 
MR. LAMARQUE: I'm just a poor island guy. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Has it been a problem with the 
ability to get staff there? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Yes, it has. As a matter of fact, 
one of our biggest problems with recruitment right now is, the 



staff, even staff that have been there for a period of years, 
they would go and make an offer on a house, and by evening time, 
somebody else goes in and offers more. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What can you do about that, 
anything? Not much. 

MR. LAMARQUE: You know, there's not much to do, 
because the area is gradually increasing and increasing. The 
only thing that I have done in the past is that I've made 
recommendation to giving the staffing for staff living in the 
area like that, because the rent is pretty high. A one-bedroom 
house or apartment, you can pay anywhere from 1500 on up. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Down there? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Same thing ten years ago would 



have been — 



probably. 



hundred. 



MR. LAMARQUE: Yeah, ten years ago. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: One hundred fifty tops, 

MR. LAMARQUE: Probably about three or four 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: That much down there? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Yeah. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You mention you're exploring 
ways to make substance abuse, parenting, and re-entry classes 
mandatory for inmates within one year of their release. 

I think the parenting and re-entry would be good. 
I would think that the substance abuse classes are better at the 
beginning when they go in rather than wait until the end. 



MR. LAMARQUE: One of the things that I think the 
Department does a really good job at is that our entire process 
through education, vocational, and all the programs that we have 
is, we do give the inmates the opportunity to better themself 
and to change, and to go to self-help groups, NA, AA, programs 
like that. 

The area I was really talking about was to target 
these guys a year before they go home and make it — have a 
group of programs to go through prior to them getting out. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. Senator 
Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I actually have one question, 
the re-entry program. 

What are you trying to do to prevent recidivism? 
Do you think these training programs are the best way? 

MR. LAMARQUE: Well, Senator, that's something, 
again, from the classes, the education programs that we have, 
the vocational program where they go out and learn a trade, 
through all the special programs that we have, all those will 
contribute to that. And the goal is that they have the 
opportunity to better themself before they hit the streets. 

And again, if we go back and provide all this 
training for them, all the, you know, high schools. They can 



even get up to a junior college level if they really want to. 
All those will contribute to their success once they go outside 
into the community. 

If we can target them a little bit closer, where 
it's mandatory that they attend some of those programs that we 
have, then I think that will help reduce that. 

The thing is that for those guys to go out in the 
streets and be a good citizen, and stay away from their friends, 
start their lives all over again, getting a job, and learn how 
to put money in the bank, and stuff like that. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I think that's the best way to 
go. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, briefly. 

MR. MABRY: Chairman Burton, Rules Committee 
Members, and Appointments Secretary, my name is Roy Mabry. I'm 
the State President for the Association of Black Correctional 
Workers. 

And I'm here today to demonstrate our full 
support for confirmation as Warden Lamarque. 

I'd like to say to you, sir, congratulations and 
the best of luck. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You don't have term limits in 
your job; do you. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You've been in for a while. 

MR. MABRY: There's a group of people trying to 
initiate it, but we've been fighting it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Good for you. 



8 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. BAUTISTA: Good afternoon. My name Marc 
Bautista. I'm one of the four Civil Service Division officers 
for the California State Employees Association. 

We represent approximately 17,000 of our members 
out of our 85, 000 membership who work at Department of 
Corrections. 

Recently by unanimous vote of the Civil Service 
Division Council, which is represented by the 55 District Labor 
Council Presidents throughout the State of California, the four 
officers and the nine chairs for the bargaining units that CSEA 
represents unanimously voted to put together a Correctional 
Institution Committee, and I'm the officer assigned to that 
committee. Our main role of this committee was to address and 
identify issues that are unique to our members who work in 
Department of Corrections. 

I'm sure that it is not news to anyone, there are 
many, many issues that face anyone who works in the Department 
of Corrections. One of the ways that this committee feels that 
we can quickly help to identify and resolve many of the issues 
that our members face day-to-day is to come to these 
confirmation hearings, find out a little bit about these wardens 
that are coming up for confirmation, and to, you know, actively 
participate in these Senate confirmation hearings. I thank you 
for the opportunity to do that. 

We had a two-day tour at Warden Lamarque's 
facility. They were very, very gracious. It was most 
professional in the way they allowed us to meet with our 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



members, find out — and some of the issues that we faced on 
that Friday the 19th, we met the Warden Lamarque and his 
different division heads, and we addressed some of the issues of 
concerns . 

Many of the issues really dealt with staffing. 
And Warden Lamarque did touch on that, you know, that we have 
our members who are unable to, you know, take a job at this 
facility because of the cost of living in the area. 

Warden Lamarque had said that he had requested a 
$500 recruitment retention for everyone who works at that 
facility. And we are in full support of that, and we would hope 
that he would, you know, re-issue that request for recruitment 
and retention, and we would be working with him on whatever 
steps we could do to ensure that more members are able to live 
in that area. 

The nursing facility at his institution had 29 
positions that were all allocated, and at that time there were 9 
nurses there. So, there was only 9 out of 29 nurses. Within 
the two days that we were there, two of the nurses had quit. 

So, it's virtually impossible for, you know, our 
members to provide the services to these inmates, health 
services, with that type of staffing levels, and many of it 
deals with the cost of living there. 

I was quite encouraged to hear Warden Lamarque' s 
commitment on providing the very best education possible for the 
inmates there. We also, too, believe that that is the best that 
we can do for taxpayers — all of us are taxpayers here — to 
ensure that these inmates have the best opportunity when they go 



10 

back out into the community to succeed in the community/ and 
less likely to come back into the prison system. 

On behalf of the California State Employees 
Association, we are here to support Warden Lamarque. We did 
talk to the different labor groups, and everyone relies that he 
walked into a bad situation, but at least he was willing to stay 
there and try to address it, and try to resolve it. So, with 
this commitment to work with us, to help make that institution 
an institution that, you know, people will be able to — will 
want to come work there, and be able to live in the area, we are 
here to provide our full support to Warden Lamarque. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

Other witnesses in support, briefly please. We 
have to be on the Floor. 

MR. DUEGAW: Senator Burton and Senators, my 
name is Glenn Duegaw. I am the Vice President of the Chicano 
Correctional Workers Association at Salinas Valley State 
Prison. 

On behalf of the Chicano Correctional Workers, we 
wish to recommend confirmation of Anthony Lamarque as Warden at 
Salinas Valley State Prison. 

Warden Lamarque has improved the working 
conditions at Salinas Valley State Prison. He has promoted 
advancement through education, giving everyone an equal 
opportunity to learn and to perform to the best of their 
abilities . 

Salinas Valley State Prison. is a relatively new 
prison with many difficulties. Warden Lamarque has accepted 



11 

this difficult assignment and has overcome many of the 
challenges to operate and improve a prison whose task is 
maintaining the custody of some of the toughest criminals 
incarcerated in the State of California. You may be aware, it 
is a Level Four prison, where you have some of the toughest 
criminals in the state. 

Just recently the other day, we had a person in 
classification with a sentence release date of 2508. So, you 
can get an idea of how long some of these guys are going to be 
there, and some of the difficulties. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No term limits in prisons, 
either. 

MR. DUEGAW: We also support a recruitment 
allowance because of the high cost of living in the area. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have your family here at 



all, Warden? 



MR. LAMARQUE: Yes, I do, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you like to introduce 



them. 



MR. LAMARQUE: Sure. 

My wife, Genna. My son Matt. My other son could 
not make it because he's in college and he has classes. I have 
my sister. Actually, both of my sisters are here, Gladys, and 
Josleen, she went outside, the baby was crying. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right. 

Any witnesses in opposition? Hearing none, moved 
by Senator Knight. 

Call the roll. 



12 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 
SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 
SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Warden. 
MR. LAMARQUE: Thank you. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 1:55 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



13 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

_, 2001. 



aT 



day of y ~T zM^ ^~~~ ^ 

7- 



o 



"ZAlT 



. ""EVELYN J. Mi: 
-"'Shorthand Reporter 



414-R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 414-R when ordering. 



£7 






.*}« 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
FEB 2 il 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



£ HEARING 

SENATE^RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA D0C UMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 2 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2001 
1:36 P.M. 



415-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2 001 
1:36 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR ROSS JOHNSON, Vice Chair 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR ED VINCENT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

SUSIE SWATT, Consultant to SENATOR JOHNSON 

TIM SHELLEY, Consultant to SENATOR KARNETTE 

CHRIS BURNS, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

CAROLYN ROBINSON, Consultant to SENATOR VINCENT 

ALSO PRESENT 

RICHARD T. BAKER, Member 

Public Employment Relations Board 

SHERRIE GOLDEN 

California State Employees Association 

AARON READ 

PECG, CAPS, CAHP, CDF Firefighters 

DENNIS ALEXANDER 

Professional Engineers in California Government 

CHRIS VOIGHT 

California Association of Professional Scientists 

TIM FRIES 

California Union of Safety Employees 



Ill 



ANNE GIESE, Chief Counsel 
CSEA 

ROBERT J. ABERNETHY, Member 
State Board of Education 

SENATOR JACK 0' CONNELL 

ROSE CASSELMAN 

Association of California School Administrators 

SUZANNE TACHENY, Executive Director 
California Business for Education Excellence 

REED HASTINGS, Member 
State Board of Education 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

RICHARD T. BAKER, Member 

Public Employment Relations Board 1 

Thanks to Appointments Staff 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Major Challenge Facing PERB 2 

Number of Members Currently on 

Board 3 

Chairing Meetings 3 

Appointing Authority of Current 

Members 3 

Witnesses in Support: 

SHERRIE GOLDEN 

California State Employees Association 4 

AARON READ 

PECG, CAPS, CAHP, CDF Firefighters 5 

DENNIS ALEXANDER 

Professional Engineers in California Government 5 

CHRIS VOIGHT 

California Association of Professional Scientists 5 

TIM FRIES 

California Union of Safety Employees 6 

ANNE GIESE, Chief Counsel 

California State Employees Association 6 



Motion to Confirm 6 

Committee Action 7 

ROBERT J. ABERNETHY, Member 

State Board of Education 7 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR JACK 0' CONNELL 7 

Brief Statement 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Utilization of API Report 9 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Balance between State and Locals in 

K-12 9 

Conflicts between State and Local 

Districts 9 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Evaluation of Student Performance Other 

Than True/False or Multiple Choice Tests 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Need to Focus on Students in Lowest 

20 th Percentile 11 

Witnesses in Support (for Both Board Nominees) : 

ROSE CASSELMAN 

Association of School Administrators 13 

SUZANNE TACHENY, Executive Director 

California Business for Education Excellence 14 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Relationship between Board and 

State Superintendent 13 



VI 



Motion to Confirm 14 

Committee Action 14 

REED HASTINGS, Member 

State Board of Education 15 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR JACK 0' CONNELL 15 

Background and Experience 15 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

UCLA' s Defeat of Stanford 16 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Balancing State Role in K-12 

Policy Making with Role of Local 

Districts 16 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Most Important Factor in Child' s 

Success at School is Parents' Attitude 

Toward Education 17 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Need to Focus on Bringing the 

Bottom Up 18 

Statements by SENATOR VINCENT re: 

Same Thing for 20 Years; Nothing Changes 21 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Teachers Saying They Need Masters 

Degree to Teach Inner City Students 22 

Need to Establish Discipline in 

Classrooms 24 

Motion to Confirm 25 

Committee Action 25 



VI 1 



Termination of Proceedings 25 

Certificate of Reporter 26 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees appearing 
today, Richard Baker, member of the Public Employment Relations 
Board. 

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members, 
Senators. 

It's my privilege to be here this afternoon and 
participate in this confirmation hearing. 

At the outset, I don't think it's inappropriate 
to thank your staff for the courtesy that has been shown to me 
and, I presume, to the other people that will appear before you: 
Nettie Sabelhaus and Roger Dillon. I appreciate very much the 
help that they extended to me. 

Just briefly, this appointment really is the 
culmination of a long career in California public sector labor 
relations on my part. I started my career way back in 1960, 
and I have actually been a participant and watched the evolution 
of the labor laws now that govern public employees in the State 
of California. 

I've had the privilege of representing a number 
of public groups during that period of time: the engineers, the 
attorneys, the scientists that work for the State of 
California. I've also represented high school and college 
instructors and teachers, and I've had the privilege of working 
with others in local government. 

I remember when there were no laws governing 
labor relations in the State of California. And I've had the 



happy opportunity of seeing things progress until we are here 
today. And I appreciate this opportunity of being here in front 
of you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you think the major 
challenge facing PERB is, looking forward? 

MR. BAKER: Well, I'd say right now it's 
implementing the implementation of jurisdiction of the Meyers- 
Milias-Brown Act. Local government employees are now coming 
under the jurisdiction, for labor relations purposes, of PERB, 
and our staff is getting ready to bring to us regulations that 
will take care of the governance of that jurisdiction. 

I think that's the challenge that we'll see for 
the next year or two years, getting into that. Actually, it's a 
new era, I think, for PERB because now all public employees 
throughout the state fall under the jurisdiction of PERB. I 
think it's something that a lot of us have been looking forward 
to for a long time. That's the major challenge which I see. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is that Ralph Brown or George 
Brown? 

MR. BAKER: George Brown. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: You only have three members on 
the Board? 

' MR. BAKER: We do . It's a five-member Board. We 
currently have three, three appointees. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What carries it; two-to-one, or 
three-zero? 

MR. BAKER: Two-to-one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you can adopt something 
with less than a majority of the Board? 

MR. BAKER: That's true. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who's Chairman of the Board? 

MR. BAKER: We have no Chairman. We function 
without a Chair. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is that appointed by the 
Governor or elected? 

MR. BAKER: It's appointed by the Governor. The 
Chair is appointed by the Governor. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's a short board and no 
Chair. 

MR. BAKER: That's correct. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Who chairs the meetings? Do 
you rotate? 

MR. BAKER: Well, we have a senior member, and by 
consensus, the senior member acts as Chair in our meetings. We 
have public meetings about every two months, and Member Amador 
is acting as Chair at the current time. Does a good job, too. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was he appointed by Governor 
Wilson or Governor Davis? 



MR. BAKER: Governor Wilson. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then you and Whitehead are 
Governor Davis? 

MR. BAKER: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, we have a short board with 
no chair with one Republican holdover. 

MR. BAKER: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you able to function? 

MR. BAKER: We have been functioning, I think, 
very well. 

Well, we get the decisions out, and I think we're 
collegial in what we do, and it's working. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would think that there might 
be room here for a Senate appointee. 

Speakers in support. 

I think Sherrie Golden comes first. 

MR. BAKER: This is my cheering section. 

MS. GOLDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sherrie 
Golden, representing the California State Employees Association. 

We support this nomination for Mr. Baker on the 
PERB Board. I have had the pleasure of working with him for 
many, many years at CSEA. Not only is he competent and 
knowledgeable, and I think he'll be fair, but he is a true 
gentleman. And that, in my opinion, is a real plus. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And he can do the work of three 
men. 



MS. GOLDEN: Seems to be 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Speaking of which, with all the 
public employees that are women, these people are all men. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I think the Senate should 
appoint somebody. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We'll take note. 

Aaron. 

MR. READ: Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and Members/ Aaron Read. 

It's a pleasure to be here. You'll hear from two 
of my clients, the Professional Engineers in California 
Government and the Scientists are here to speak for themselves. 
I'll add to that the Highway Patrol Association and the 
Firefighters . 

I have known Dick Baker for 32 years. In many 
ways, he was a mentor to me, one of the reasons I got in this 
business 32 years ago. There is nobody that has a higher 
credibility, and honesty, and integrity than Dick Baker, and I'm 
pleased to be here to support him. 

I'm also pleased that his son has been on my 
staff for 11 years, and he's equally trained by his dad. 

MR. ALEXANDER: I'm Dennis Alexander, 
representing Professional Engineers in California Government, a 
10, 000-member association. 

We're in full support of the nomination of 
Mr. Baker. He probably could do the job all by himself over 
there. 

MR. VOIGHT: Good afternoon. Chris Voight on 
behalf of the California Association of Professional Scientists. 



Dick represented CAPS for about 15 years. I 
worked for Dick for about 13 of those years, and there's no 
better choice for the job. We heartily endorse him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do the members of your 
organization do? 

MR. VOIGHT: They are the scientists that staff 
the state agencies at Fish and Game, Food and Ag, Toxics, 230 
different classifications. 

MR. FRIES: Tim Fries on behalf of the California 
Union of Safety Employees. 

We'd just like to echo our support of Mr. Baker. 

MS. GIESE: Anne Giese, Chief Counsel, 
California State Employees Association. We represent nine 
bargaining units of state employees, and four bargaining units 
of state university employees. 

We are heartily in support of the nomination 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Do you have any family you want to introduce, 
Dick? 

MR. BAKER: I do . I have my wife, Francis, and 
my son, Steve, who works with Aaron. I hope he finds an honest 
job. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, moved by Senator Johnson. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 



SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. BAKER: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Robert Abernethy, Member, 
State Board of Ed. 

Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Just briefly I want to introduce my friend, Bob 
Abernethy, who's a member of the State Board of Education. 

Bob's a very successful business person, owns 
self-storage companies throughout much of California. A 
graduate of Johns Hopkins University, has been a trustee there. 
Has a Masters from Harvard School of Business. 

He's given a great deal of time to public service 
towards the last decade or so. Has developed expertise in both 
transportation as well as education. 

And lastly, just last month, he put together an 
all-day seminar for several of us to learn in his office some of 
the more complex issues surrounding education, brought some 
experts in from here, from the Bay Area, from Southern 
California all day. 



8 

If there's not an answer that he doesn't know the 
question to, he's not reluctant to seek those responses and is 
continuing to be an outstanding member of the State Board of 
Education. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Bob. 

MR. ABERNETHY: Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, it's my privilege to be 
here before you. 

I want to commend you all on the tremendous 
amount of service that's been rendered to the State of 
California and all the people in the state by each of you 
throughout your Senate service. 

I'm delighted to have the opportunity to be 
before you seeking confirmation to serve, and continue to serve, 
on the State Board of Education. 

I have written you a letter which, I think, each 
of you have. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We have that as part of the 
record. 

MR. ABERNETHY: It talks about my views on 
accountability, and assessment, and curriculum framework, and 
instructional materials, and professional development, and 
facilities. I won't bother to repeat the information here that 
I've given you, but I present myself for your questions. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

These are questions that we will ask both you and 



Mr. Hastings. 

The 2000 Academic Performance Index reports 
clearly identified the lowest performing schools, their 
progress, and the information about their students. 

Do you know whether or not the Board is utilizing 
any of this data as they project things that they should be 
doing? 

MR. ABERNETHY: Yes, and we're beginning to 
increasingly make utilization of the data. We're still in the 
process of trying to work out some of the technical problems in 
that area. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: There is a question that I'd 
like to ask about balancing your state role in K-12 with the 
role of the school districts and local communities. How do you 
see that? 

MR. ABERNETHY: I believe the local schools are 
where the action is. It's the job of the local school boards 
and school organizations to support those schools. It's the 
role of the State Board of Education to support the local 
districts and do what we can to help the local districts help 
their schools achieve good performance on the part of the 
students and raise our standing amongst the states in the United 
States from where we are to a higher level. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Do you ever see any conflict 
there, though? Do you have conflicts in that area? 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



10 

MR. ABERNETHY: In any large bureaucratic 
organization there are always conflicts, Senator. 

There are roles. We sort through them. We have 
agenda items before us, and we try to do our best to look at the 
pluses and minuses of them. Inevitably, there will be 
conflicts . 

A good example is an area that wants to move from 
one school district to another. Many times you find conflicts 
and controversy about that, and sometimes it's a tough job to 
figure out, you know, what one should do about that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Baker, there's been — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is Abernethy. We already 
confirmed Baker. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Oh gee whiz, I missed it. 
[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Mr. Abernethy, I'm sorry, my 
apologies. I got the names mixed up there. 

In any event, there's been a great deal of talk, 
discussion, about testing within the school system in order to 
assess the performance of the schools and the students, and 
accountability, in essence. And we're giving more and more 
tests . 

But from what I saw today in Education Committee 
meeting, California's still — they almost made it on the chart, 
as low as they could get. It was at the bottom. 

Is there anything that we're doing or 



11 

contemplating, any additional mechanisms by which we can 
evaluate the performance of our schools and students, other 
than, you know, tests that say true or false, or multiple 
choice? 

MR. ABERNETHY: We're continuing to try to test 
our tests, and try to evaluate how effectively they do operate. 
It's an ongoing process. Some of the testing programs have 
begun only a year or two ago, so we have a lot of work to do to 
try to fine-tune the content of those examinations and to figure 
out how to use the content. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Nobody is the thinking about 
trying to come up with some subjective mechanism, other than 
being able to give a test, take the numbers, and say these 
numbers fit in here? 

MR. ABERNETHY: There's certain portions of 
certain of the tests that involve right examples and that aren't 
just strictly true-false questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: I don't want to cause any 
confusion. I just want to maintain it. . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are there witnesses in support. 

One of the things that I'd like to do is, you 
know, basically what we still find out is that students from 
low-income families are not matching the test improvement with 
other people. 

Has the Board they done anything, or can they 
start doing something to focus on helping the students in the 
lowest 20 percent of the schools? 



12 

We have primarily, at least in this 
administration, it seems to me, we're focusing on the best of 
the best, which is really wonderful, but if we don't do 
something to bring up those on the bottom, those on the bottom 
will be breaking into the homes of the best of the best in 
another ten years. 

MR. ABERNETHY: It's one of my personal focuses 
and objectives, to try to cut down on the number of students 
that finish their education in California being unable to pick 
up a copy of the Los Angeles Times and read it, put it down, and 
stand up and tell a friend what they've read, and then to sit 
down and write a coherent letter to their parents about what 
they've read. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Ideally to the editor. 
[Laughter. ] 

MR. ABERNETHY: I would be satisfied if it were 
to anybody and coherent. Maybe I should choose the Orange 
County Register . 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then they'd definitely want to 
write a letter to the editor. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. ABERNETHY: And also do addition, 
multiplication, subtraction and division, and percentages and 
fractions accurately and quickly. 

I think we need to make sure that no matter when 
a student is finishing, or choosing to finish, their education, 
that they have these basic skills, because they're what's 



13 

necessary to get gainful employment. And if they don't have the 
skills, they wind up being — either relying on the state or 
someone else for support to live for a lifetime, or they engage 
in occupations that statutes prohibit. 

I think it's important that we do successfully 
fund these schools and the teachers, and develop teacher 
training effectively that will allow us to achieve that 
objective. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In support. 

MS. CASSELMAN: Rose Casselman with the 
Association of School Administrators. 

We've had the opportunity to interview each of 
the nominees, and we've had the opportunity to observe them over 
the last year. And we are satisfied that they are open to 
listening to our organization and have the best interests of 
students in mind, and we support both Mr. Abernethy and 
Mr. Hastings. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the relationship now 
between the Board and the Superintendent? 

MR. ABERNETHY: I think the relationship is a 
good one. At all of our Board meetings, the Superintendent is 
present. There's a good exchange of ideas and dialogue, and an 
ability to make suggestions both ways. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm sure that in three years 
it'll even be better. 

Did you have any family that came up with you, 
Bob? 

MR. ABERNETHY: No. 



14 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 
You were in support, ma'am? I'm sorry. 

MS. TACHENY: Suzanne Tacheny, Executive 
Director for California Business for Education Excellence. 

We support both of the nominees who are before 
you today to the State Board of Education. Both are — have 
brought common sense and pragmatic problem solving from a 
business perspective to the Board and have been terrific Board 
members . 

We attend most of the Board meetings and have 
been very impressed with them, so we put our endorsement behind 
them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Moved by Senator Johnson. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Bob, congratulations. 

MR. ABERNETHY: Thank you, Senators. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator O'Connell. 



15 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Reed Hastings is a very 
successful entrepreneur from the northern California areas. He 
created and founded high tech firms that have been very 
successful. Currently CEO of NETFLIX over in the Bay Area. 

He was teacher in the Peace Corps for a number of 
years. He was totally committed to making it easier for school 
districts to pass local bond measures, and I've had the pleasure 
of working with him on that issue for the last several years. 

Also totally committed and responsible for the 
current charter school expansion that we've had in the state. 
Strong proponent for public education. Very articulate. A 
common sense direction for the Board, and is currently serving 
as the Chairperson of the State Board of Education. 

I wanted to introduce Mr. Hastings to the 
Committee here today. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Reed. 

MR. HASTINGS: Thank you, Senators. It's a great 
pleasure to be here. 

In addition to the statement of policy and 
responding to your questions represented on the written record, 
both Bob Abernethy and I spent a lot of time trying to work with 
the business community in terms of, everybody knows how 
important the public school system is, but not everybody 
understands how complex it is, how many different students and 
different needs there are throughout the system. 

I think one of the great things about putting on 
some nontraditional State Board Members like us is that we're 
also partially ambassadors out to draw in the rest of the 



16 

business community in terms of supporting the important work 
that public education does. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions, Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I see that you got a graduate 
degree from Stanford. 

MR. HASTINGS: That's correct. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Could you explain to me how 
UCLA could lose by 29 points to Cal and come back 48 hours later 
and defeat Stanford. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Steve Lavin is a survivor. 
[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Let the witness speak for 
himself, please, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. HASTINGS: At Stanford a lot of people are 
too busy studying. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I have the same question that 
I asked Bob Abernethy, about balancing the state role in K-12 
policy making, and the role of the local districts versus the 
state, and so forth. 

MR. HASTINGS: Well, I think like everybody, you 
know, supports the role of local education. And what I've often 
found is that we all support the role of local education, but 
then we think things like class size reduction is one of the 
best programs that passed. It's sort of directly opposed to 






17 

local control. 

So, I try to think about it not so much is it the 
state bureaucracy or the local bureaucracy, because there's a 
balance there that's used for both. I try to think about it as 
the relationship between the student and her or his child — 
sorry, the teacher and her or his student. 

And, you know, fundamentally, schools are a 
network of relationships between the teachers and the pupils. 
We in Sacramento can pass all the laws we want, and unless we 
affect the relationship between the teacher and his or her 
pupils, it doesn't change anything. 

Many of our programs have had difficulty in 
changing that relationship. Think about class size reduction. 
It's been a very successful program because it allowed each 
teacher to spend more time with their pupils. 

And the lens that I try to look at each of these 
programs through is, how does it enhance or support those 
relationships, again, between the teacher and his or her pupils. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, just briefly. 

I've had the opportunity to meet with the 
nominee, and so on, and I certainly intend to support him. 

I don't mean to get into a lengthy, philosophical 
thing, and I agree with everything that you've said, but every 
study that I've ever seen or heard about says that the single 
most important factor in any child's success in school is the 
child's parents' attitude toward education. 

So, we can talk about a lot of programs aimed at 
helping kids, and so on, but unless somehow we, in that process, 



1 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



18 

reach the parents and have them interested in their child 
succeeding in school, and seeing to it that at night, at home, 
they're working with that kid and encourage them to succeed, it 
won't work. 

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I don't mean to get 
into a philosophical side, but I think that's very, very 
important . 

MR. HASTINGS: I completely agree with you, and 
to the degree that we can do things legislatively or otherwise 
to draw parents in to support those relationships, there's no 
question that that's a stronger influence than the one the 
teacher has. 

And in some cases, where the parents aren't 
providing the level of support that you or I might, is where we 
really try to work hard to give the kid as fair a chance as we 
can. But that's not in any way to exclude the parents at all. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One of the questions that I 
asked Mr. Abernethy was, basically I'm quite concerned with 
focusing more on bringing the bottom up than bringing the top 
farther over the top. 

I have a great theory about education being 
mobility tickets up and out of economic ghettos, social ghettos 
whatever it is. 

What can the State Board do to focus on that, to 
try to lift them? You can argue, although I think it's a 
fallacy, that economically, if there's a lot of money on top, 
it'll trickle down. If you could have 72 A students, none of 
that's going to trickle down to the F students. We have to do 



19 

something to focus there to help. 

And whether it's as Senator Johnson said, either 
helping encourage the parents, only with some of these people, 
you know, the parents, unfortunately, aren't going to be that 
much help, so whether it's providing an alternative stimulus for 
them, an ability to do stuff, but what can the State Board do? 

MR. HASTINGS: I think there's several things 
that we have done. In particular, if you look at the 
construction of the STAR results and the Academic Performance 
Index, it's heavily weighted towards improvement at the low end. 
And so, we've got these explicit weighting factors so that 
improvement at the low end gets more points in terms of the 
rewards than improvement at the high end. So, it's a very 
conscious signalling mechanism to school districts. 

The second thing we do is, we don't just say a 
school can succeed as a whole. That is the average of all 
students. That's not acceptable, and that doesn't get you the 
rewards and results. And so, we spent a lot of time designing 
the API so that each of the major subgroups has to show 
substantial improvement. 

So, on the measurement side, I think there's been 
a lot of work to carefully measure, because often what you 
measure for is what you get. And so, as you design the 
measurement system, you really want to set up these incentives 
for significant improvement at the low end. 

But in addition, there's the capacity side. So, 
testing, I think of it like accounting. So, it tells you where 
you are, but it doesn't of itself fix anything. And it, you 



20 

know, provides some sunshine, and it provides some vehicles for 
change and demanding change, but the things that change the 
school are things like the capacity programs, the teacher 
training that the Governor's put in this year's budget, which is 
unprecedented in California's history. 

Most teachers — well, there's a lot of variety. 
So, you know, there's a small minority that will pick up all the 
new techniques all on their own. They're just tremendously 
ambitious and aggressive. And there's a small minority that 
doesn't care. You could do all the training you want, you're 
not going to get through to them. And then, most teachers, by 
and large, want to do a good job, but, you know, they were 
trained 10-20 years ago in a range of techniques, especially in 
reading, that we know don't work very well. And that's where 
the teacher training makes such a difference. 

So, that's really only a small part of the State 
Board's view. Mostly it's the budgetary process that puts those 
in place. And where we contribute to that is things like the 
standards alignment, helping those. 

But I think those are probably the most important 
of the capacity building programs to help schools do well on 
this accountability index. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, "Read the first chapter and 
be prepared to answer the eight questions at the end," doesn't 
make it any more? 

MR. HASTINGS: That's correct. It won't get you 
by. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's why I never became a 



21 

teacher. I thought that was it, because you had to have lesson 
plans. And here I am. 

Senator Vincent. 

SENATOR VINCENT: You know, I've been to so many 
Education meetings with Senator VasconcelloS/ and some of the 
stuff I've heard, I've heard 20 years ago. It seems to be the 
same thing; nothing changes. 

I don't know what the Board can do about it, but 
we keep talking about teacher training, but it doesn't happen. 
As a matter of fact, half of the people who are teachers are in 
the Legislature now because, well, pay is one big thing. 

I'll just say one thing. If you keep on doing 
what you've been doing, you get the same old thing you've been 
getting. And that's going to continue to happen. 

I hope that there's no opposition to your 
confirmation, and there shouldn't be, but I hope that you will 
be a beacon to do some of the things that Senator Burton was 
saying. 

There's some kids at the bottom, at the bottom, 
you know, and those kids are still at the bottom, and they're 
going to stay at the bottom until we make some changes up here. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Vincent and I were in a meeting this 
morning, along with Senator O'Connell, and heard a lot about — 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I was there, too. Just 
because I don't sound like a teacher all the time — 



22 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I guess you should have sat up 
in the chair. 

Anyway, we had two teachers in there. They're 
indicating that they can't teach in the kind of environment that 
Senator Burton was talking about, in trying to get the 
low-income people and low achievers up. That they've got to 
have a master's degree at least, and go through specific 
training programs in order to survive in that environment. 

Is that the opinion of the Board as well? 

MR. HASTINGS: Well, I should speak for myself, 
probably, in that. 

I think additional training, you know, will help 
teachers be successful in a wider range of environments, but 
I've also seen some of the most successful teachers who don't 
have the formal training. I think we've all seen that in our 
lives with who's been mentoring us or other things. 

So we try to provide, in my view, structures so 
that teachers can get the help that they want/ and so that they 
can have a broader repertoire of techniques. But a lot of what 
they learn is in the classroom from fellow teachers, from their 
principal . 

I guess, on balance, I'd have to say I'm not sure 
I agree with the view that you've got to have a master's degree 
to teach inner city. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: The impression was that they're 
moving in that direction, and that was what they thought would 
be one of the solutions to the various problems. 

MR. HASTINGS: Well — 



23 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I guess I don't understand what 
we're teaching in the undergraduate classes in trying to prepare 
or educate a teacher. And if there is a requirement for a 
master's degree or higher education, then so be it. 

MR. HASTINGS: I think the core issue that you 
have in the inner city teaching is, most people who teach in the 
inner city, after a couple of years, when they've got the 
seniority, they find a way to transfer out, either to a more 
stable school in the district, or maybe it's a more satisfying 
professional environment, or maybe where they feel safer, or 
they transfer districts, because now they've got the experience 
and ability to do that. 

So, it's not easy to teach in inner city 
conditions. What we've got is, we don't have any way of 
compensating those people, you know, more than other people, for 
example. We don't have any way of — you know, it's purely the 
psychic rewards, you know, of doing great work. 

And that works for many of our teachers, but as 
we've clearly seen, not enough. If you look at the skew of 
certif ied-uncertif ied, or experienced-unexperienced, and you 
look at inner city schools, by and large, you see a pretty big 
skew. 

Now, you know, next week you'll be hearing from 
Nancy Ichinaga, who has succeeded wildly. And in her view, she 
wants the teachers before they've gotten polluted by all that 
education because she's going to do it, you know, on the job, 
and she's got a model. And, you know, she's the state's best 
example of someone with, you know, tough demographics and tough 



24 

conditions that had extraordinary results. I mean, her API 
scores are at eight, which is higher than many, many surrounding 
districts. The STAR results are near 760. 

And in her view, it's not been, you know, I want 
the masters from such-and-such a school. It's, give me someone 
who's hungry, give me someone who's thoughtful, and I can teach 
them the rest. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: There was another interesting 
thing in the meeting this morning. They pictured a teacher, 86 
years old. She was dressed like a lady. And they gave an 
excerpt of her classroom. And the first thing she did was 
establish the discipline. And I'm not saying, you will do this, 
but she did establish discipline by saying, "You're sitting up 
straight. Put your feet under your desk and ready to go to 
work. " 

Discipline in the classroom, I think — I don't 
know how we got -- well, I do know how we got rid of it; the 
ACLU helped us. 

But I think we need to get class discipline back 
in the classroom. I don't know how you do that, though. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's still a chance to 
introduce Mickey Conroy's paddling bill, Pete. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No, I don't want that one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson wanted to know 
if you had any family you wanted to introduce. 

MR. HASTINGS: I don't, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, you've 



25 



spoken earlier for both candidates. 

Any witnesses in opposition? 
Moved by Senator Johnson. Call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 
SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Vincent. 
SENATOR VINCENT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Vincent Aye. Senator Johnson, 
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:12 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



26 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

, 2001. 



r : 

day of , — 7 e * IX i-. <** *-* «/ 

^ 77 



^EVELYN J.-TjiZAK^ 
Shorthand /Reporter 



415-R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 415-R when ordering. 



* HEARING 

rSENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

APR 1 6 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2001 
1:37 P.M. 



416-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2 001 
1:37 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 



MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR ROSS JOHNSON, Vice Chair 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

MEMBER ABSENT 

SENATOR ED VINCENT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

BILL BAILEY, Consultant to SENATOR JOHNSON 

TIM SHELLEY, Consultant to SENATOR KARNETTE 

CHRIS BURNS, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

CAROLYN ROBINSON, Consultant to SENATOR VINCENT 

ALSO PRESENT 

MAUREEN P. EARLY, Deputy Director 
Employment Development Department 

NANCY ICHINAGA, Member 
State Board of Education 

KERRY MAZZONI 
Secretary for Education 

GARY HART 

CSU Institute for Education Reform 

SUZANNE TACHENY, Executive Director 
California Business for Education Excellence 



Ill 



KAREN STAPF WALTERS 

Association of California School Administrators 

MARIA S. QUEZADA, Ph.D., Executive Director 
California Association for Bilingual Education 

MARTHA DIAZ 

California Association for Bilingual Education 

GLORIA INZUNZA- FRANCO, Parent 
Paramount High School 

ROMELIA WORKNEH 
Parents for Unity 

CAROL GUANDIQUE 
Padres por Unidad 

PETER SCHILLA 
Californians Together 



IV 

INDEX 

Pagre 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

MAUREEN P. EARLY, Deputy Director 

Employment Development Department 1 

Description of Position 2 

Motion to Confirm 3 

Committee Action 3 

NANCY ICHINAGA, Member 

State Board of Education 3 

Introduction and Support by 

KERRY MAZZONI, Secretary for Education 3 

Support in Letter from SENATOR ED VINCENT 4 

Background and Experience 4 

Statement by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Impressed with Letter of Support from 

Staff at Bennett -Kew 5 

Witnesses in Support : 

GARY HART 

CSU Institute for Education Reform 5 

SUZANNE TACHENY, Executive Director 

California Business for Education Excellence 6 

KAREN STAPF WALTERS 

Association of California School Administrators 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Allegations of Hostility towards 

Mathematics 8 



Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Position on Learning Broader 

Ramifications of Mathematics 9 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

MARIA QUEZADA, Ph.D., Executive Director 

California Association for Bilingual Education 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Is Denial of Access to Bilingual 

Programs the Fault of Nominee 12 

Number of Members on State 

Board of Education 13 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Position on Parental Choice of 

Vouchers 14 

MARTHA DIAZ 

California Association for Bilingual Education 15 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Position on Prop. 227 as 

Disqualif ier for Membership 16 

GLORIA INZUNZA- FRANCO, Parent 

Paramount High School 17 

ROMELIA WORKNEH 

Parents for Unity 18 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Parent's Choice with Voucher 

Program 2 

Statements by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Clear and Consistent Theme in 

Opposition Testimony 21 



VI 



Request to Submit Further 

Testimony in Writing 21 

CAROL GRAND I QUE 

Padres por Unidad 22 

PETER SCHILLA 

Californians Together 22 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

If Parents Want Bilingual Education, 

How Would Nominee Handle That Request 22 

Following the Law as Member of 

State Board ". 23 

Motion to Confirm 23 

Committee Action 24 

Termination of Proceedings 24 

Certificate of Reporter 25 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees 
appearing today, Maureen Early, Deputy Director of EDD. 

She is a personal friend of mine. I served in 
Congress with her father, but don't let that influence anybody. 
It didn't influence the Governor. 

Go ahead. 

MS. EARLY: My name is Maureen Patricia Early, 
and I'm here today. Thank you very much for hearing my case, 
Senate Pro Tern John Burton and other distinguished Members of 
the Senate Rules Committee. 

I'm not really sure what you want me to say. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Why don't you thank the 
undistinguished Members. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. EARLY: I'd also like to thank the 
undistinguished Members. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Move the nomination. 
[Laughter. ] 

MS. EARLY: I might as well thank the Academy 
while I'm here as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you hear about Joe Mokeley. 

MS. EARLY: No. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess he resigned. He's got 
real bad leukemia. 

MS. EARLY: Oh, dear God. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here? 



Have you got those eight brothers and sisters? 

MS. EARLY: Unfortunately, I didn't have advanced 
notice to get the whole family out, but they would have come had 
they been given it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 

Do you have questions, anybody? 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I don't have a question, but I 
did talk to her earlier. 

I think people ought to know how good you are 
with helping people get jobs. Tell them a little bit about 
that. 

MS. EARLY: I could just take a minute to let you 
know what I've been doing since I took the position of Executive 
Director of Business Relations in September of 1999. 

I work closely with Director Michael Bernick and 
Operations Branch to essentially look at the State of California 
and the individuals who face multiple barriers to employment. 
There are a lot of individuals out there, many of whom have 
disabilities, both physical, emotional, psychological. Young 
people with learning disabilities, and other factions of the 
population who face challenges relating to training and 
education who would like to work but don't have the tools. 

And EDD has amazing programs in the field, which 
is the main reason why I love my job. There are programs within 
job service that EDD funds which essentially help people find 
good paying jobs. 

It's exciting, and I ' d be happy to get more 
information to any of you that would be interested. And 



hopefully in the future, when I contact you to assist us with 
funding, you'll be happy to assist us. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'll move the nomination. Call 



the roll 



Board of Ed 



Any opposition? Hearing none. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette 
SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 



SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR KNIGHT 
SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR JOHNSON 
SECRETARY WEBB: 
CHAIRMAN BURTON 
SECRETARY WEBB: 



Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 

Aye. 

Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 
Aye. 

Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 
Aye. 

Burton Aye. Four to zero. 
MS. EARLY: Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
Call the old man and give him the good news. 
MS. EARLY: I will. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next, Nancy Ichinaga, State 



MS. MAZZONI: Thank you, Mr. Pro Tern and Members. 

I'd like to introduce Nancy Ichinaga to you. 
Nancy is a retired principal of Bennett-Kew Elementary School in 
Inglewood, and Nancy has been a dedicated educator for over 26 
years. Her former school is comprised of a majority of Latino 
and African-American students whose families are from poor and 
immigrant backgrounds. 

Nancy is committed to ensuring that every child 



is successful in school. She has succeeded by providing a 
quality educational environment where the expectation is set 
early in the primary grades that all students can learn and 
succeed academically. 

Her school ranked eight on the Academic 
Performance Index. And her limited English-speaking students 
have received primary language support and have achieved English 
proficiency far above the statewide average. 

The Governor and I strongly support her 
confirmation as a member of the State Board of Education. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Vincent cannot be here 
today because of eye surgery, but he has sent a letter in 
support of Nancy Ichinaga. He knows her. She taught within his 
district where he was a Member of the Assembly, Senator and 
Mayor. He strongly recommends her, testifying to the 
effectiveness with students at her schools and in the community. 
Were he here, he would vote Aye. 

You can go ahead. 

MS. ICHINAGA: What do you want me to say? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know. 

MS. ICHINAGA: I'll give you a little bit of my 
background. 

I came to California after I graduated from the 
University of Hawaii in 1953. I've been here ever since, and 
I've been in California education for almost more than 40 
years. I was principal for 25 years. 

And I was raised on a sugar plantation in Hawaii, 
and my primary language was Japanese and pidgeon English. I 



started school in first grade more than 60 years ago, and I 
remember being very excited of finally being able to go to 
school to learn good English. 

I was educated bilingually. I went to Japanese 
school in the afternoon, and I went to English school all day 
long, and I became fully bilingual. I'm very proud of being 
bilingual . 

My children are me 60 years later. My parents 
are my parents 50 years later. My parents never learned 
English. 

And I believe that all children can learn, and my 
whole professional life has been dedicated to proving this, and 
I think I have. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON 
SENATOR JOHNSON 
CHAIRMAN BURTON 



Senator Johnson. 

No questions at this time. 

Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I was impressed that there's a 
letter here from the staff of your school supporting what you 
did with the teachers. I know a principal is judged, to me, by 
the teachers often times, and they were very supportive of what 
you did, and that impresses me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

SENATOR HART: Mr. Chairman, Members, I'm Gary 
Hart. 

I just wanted to say as a former Member of the 
Senate, and having served in the Davis administration, that I 



think Nancy Ichinaga brings some excellent qualities to the 
State Board of Education, really some unique qualifications, 
because she has been in the trenches for the last 20 or 30 
years. And I think it's particularly important to have someone 
with recent school site experience serving on the State Board of 
Education. 

As Secretary Mazzoni pointed out, her school has 
done outstandingly in terms of student academic performance. I 
first heard about Nancy's school by reading a front page article 
in the Los Angeles Times that was documenting how this 
low-income school was off the charts in terms of student 
academic performance. 

And her school is right near LAX, and one of the 
things that I used to do when I was in the Legislature and 
served with the Governor also was go to her school and have an 
opportunity to visit with her and with the staff at the school. 

And Senator Karnette made reference to the 
letter, and one thing I just wanted to share with you, in 
talking to some of the teachers there at the school, some of the 
teachers who are middle-class from other parts of Los Angeles 
County have their own children attend that school. They are so 
committed to what occurs in that school in terms of" excellence, 
that they are willing to have their own children attend the 
school . 

So, she's a remarkable individual and brings, I 
think, great credibility to the State Board of Education. 

MS. TACHENY: I'm Suzanne Tacheny, Executive 
Director of California Business for Education Excellence. We're 



a coalition of major businesses and business organizations 
working to support educational improvement. 

We strongly support Nancy Ichinaga for the State 
Board of Education. 

There are those in education who come from what I 
call a sense of misplaced compassion, where they would say if a 
child comes from a low-income neighborhood, or a minority 
family, or an immigrant family, that we just shouldn't expect as 
much, because they bring additional challenges. Ms. Ichinaga 's 
experience proves that high expectations, standards aligned 
instruction, and insistent leadership can do for those children, 
along with state support and other kinds of things we ought to 
be doing for those schools, but that those kids can and should 
be held to the highest standards because that ' s what matters 
most for their future. 

When people say those schools can't achieve, 
people point to Ms. Ichinaga ' s school as the example that proves 
them wrong. And her role on the State Board of Education is 
vital for that reason. She is an exemplar and should be 
honored for that . 

We attend, our organization attends Board 
meetings and see often the contribution she brings as a 
principal to put the policies that are brought to the Board in a 
context of common sense and saying, you know, "This is how it 
impacts the classroom; this is how it impacts the teacher," and 
not just talking about it the way we normally talk about it from 
the state. 

So, we urge you to approve her nomination. Thank 



you . 

MS. STAPF WALTERS: Karen Stapf Walters, 
Association of California School Administrators. 

We're here in support of her nomination. Our 
board had the opportunity to meet with her and interview her. 
From that experience, we feel that she will be very open to 
hearing other's ideas. And we also think her field experience 
as a site principal will be invaluable as an addition to the 
State Board. So, we're here in support. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I wonder if you could comment 
on the allegations that you're hostile towards mathematics. . 

MS. ICHINAGA: I'm hostile to mathematics? 

I am not hostile to mathematics. 

My first, second, and third graders scored over 
80 percentile in the Stanford 9 this past year and last year. 
My fourth and fifth graders scored over 60 percentile on the 
Stanford 9. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Your "views on mathematics are 
detrimental to students. If math wars are to end, we need to 
consider a broader, more balanced approach to mathematics." 

Do you know to which they're referring? 

MS. ICHINAGA: Yes. There are two factions in 
public education or in education today. One side believes that 
the children need basic skills. The other side believes 
otherwise, that they need to be given a broad understanding of 
math, not necessarily knowledge of basic skills. 

I believe that the children need basic skills in 



order to succeed at their age and later on when they go into 
higher education. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Senator Burton, could I 
comment . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes, please. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But you're not against them 
learning the broader ramifications of mathematics? 

MS. ICHINAGA: I don't think the two should be 
separated. As we teach basic skills, we teach them to 
understand math in general. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition. 

DR. QUEZADA: Good afternoon. My name is 
Dr. Maria Quezada. I'm the Executive Director for the 
California Association for Bilingual Education. 

I come here today on behalf of the California 
Association for Bilingual Education. I represent a statewide 
organization with over 7,000 members. These members are 
teachers, administrators, parents, para-educators, and other 
community members who believe that students and their families 
have a right to an equitable education. 

Our vision is biliteracy for all students. We 
believe that students need an education that prepares them more 
fully for our highly technical and ever changing world. 
Students come to our schools with diverse educational needs, 
fields, challenges, languages and backgrounds. English language 
learners come to school with a wide range of English language 
skills and educational levels. 



10 



Our schools, therefore, must be prepared to offer 
a wide range of program options to meet the instructional needs 
of an increasing number of English language learner students in 
California schools. 

It is because of this that CABE opposes the 
nomination of Nancy Ichinaga. Ms. Ichinaga has gone on record 
to say that she vigorously opposes any other program other than 
sheltered English immersion for English language learners. I 
have personally heard her testify at a meeting of the State 
Board of Education where she stated that even when bilingual 
programs were mandated under AB 1329 and AB 507, that she was 
proud to say that she did not follow the law. She only provided 
English instruction to her English language learners at her 
school . 

We find this blatant disregard regard for the law 
unsettling. As citizens, do we have the right to selectively 
choose the laws that we uphold? As a State Board member, will 
she only uphold those regulations and guidelines that she agrees 
with, and flagrantly oppose or push for the elimination of 
policies she is against? 

If she is so rigid in her views against any 
program other than sheltered English, then she even goes against 
the State Board testimony in Validia G, when they argued for the 
flexibility found in Proposition 227, and when they repeatedly 
emphasized that bilingual education was, in fact, not banned 
under Prop. 227. They also conceded that not all children will 
best be served by sheltered or structured English immersion 
mandated under Prop. 227.- 



11 



The program at her school may have worked for her 
students, but we don't find that kind of success in other 
schools in the state, even in other schools in her own district 
that only use English for instruction. 

We need schools that offer students a wide range 
of programs. If parents want sheltered English immersion, then 
it is their right to choose this for their children. However, 
if parents want alternative bilingual programs, these should 
also be made available to them. 

Even the State Board in their testimony in 
Validia emphasized that the waiver provision would serve as a 
safety net for those children who would not benefit from the 
mandated sheltered English program. 

I have been to many schools where parents truly 
have a choice. They can choose between bilingual instruction, 
dual language instruction programs, sheltered English programs, 
and mainstream English programs, all in one school. Their 
participation in bilingual programs is not having a detrimental 
affect. In fact, they are surpassing their API growth targets 
at a much higher rate than similar schools that only offer 
English instruction. 

CABE believes that if Ms. Ichinaga is confirmed 
to serve as a member for the State Board of Education, • the 
rights of parents will be highly jeopardized. It is our strong 
belief that she will not allow any choice other than the program 
she feels is effective, even though this program has no research 
base to substantiate its effectiveness. 

We are in the third year of implementation of 



12 



Proposition 227. Close to 900 days have passed, and the great 
increase of students who now know English because they are 
taught in English has not happened as promised. English 
language learners were to become fluent English speakers in only 
180 days in sheltered English programs. Last year, however, 
only six percent were redesignated to fluent English status, 
just like before Proposition 227, a 94 percent failure rate, 
even though over 88 percent of our English language learners are 
in English-only programs. 

I work as an evaluator for a two-way bilingual 
school in Orange County. At this school, like others, parents 
who first chose sheltered English immersion are not seeing the 
program's success and progress for their children. They are 
asking now to have their children put into the dual language 
program that I supervise. 

Parents are being denied their right to have an 
alternative bilingual program for their children in many schools 
and districts in California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is all her fault? 

DR. QUEZADA: Her inflexibility to allow 
choices -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And it's all her fault? 

DR. QUEZADA: It's not so much her fault, but she 
will be sitting a position where she has the impact. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She has been sitting in a 
position. 

DR. QUEZADA: In a position that will impact 
those choices for parents because of her strong belief in only 



13 



one way 



Board? 



members . 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many members on the State 



DR. QUEZADA: There's nine members — eleven 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go ahead. 

DR. QUEZADA: Again, under the First Appellate 
District in McLaughlin versus the State Board of Education , the 
court stressed that Proposition 227, best program choice with 
parents of LEP students, not with school districts. 

In Ms. Ichinaga's former district, parents are 
told that they do not have this type of program. They only have 
sheltered English programs available to them. This is contrary 
to the provision for waivers found in Proposition 227. 

So, if Ms. Ichinaga strongly supports Proposition 
227, she should not be selective of the sections of the law she 
chooses to uphold. Again, in the State Board brief on Prop. 
227, it states that if the program does not meet the student's 
needs, Prop. 227 allows for placement in another method of 
instruction. Parents under 227 have the right to choose an 
alternative bilingual education program -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Can I get some indication of 
how much longer your statement is? 

DR. QUEZADA: It's two minutes, not even two 
minutes. I can summarize it. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I would appreciate it if you 
would. There are other witnesses. 

Either you can take your two minutes and eat into 



14 



their time -- 

DR. QUEZADA: I will finish just by saying that 
not only are parents not being allowed to choose programs that 
they feel are beneficial to their children, teachers in our 
field are also being -- leaving the profession because they are 
being -- working in the fear of having a lawsuit brought against 
them, and knowing that their training and their skills are not 
being utilized for the kinds of programs that are beneficial to 
children. 

Our case is that we want parents to have a 
choice, but if these programs are the ones that they choose, 
that they will also be able to select. In our view, 
Ms ' s . Ichinaga inflexibility for offering or wanting that type 
of program, other types of program, would not make her a member 
that is open to other kinds of programs in the state. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Next witness. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Mr. Chairman, could I have a 
question of the witness? 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Certainly. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I would assume that you're in 
favor of vouchers, that you would like to have that choice? 

DR. QUEZADA: I am not in favor of vouchers. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Choice is only in certain areas. 

DR. QUEZADA: Choice is to have parents choose 
the programming. You can have that kind of choice in public 
schools . 

SENATOR JOHNSON: So long as they offer a program 



15 



that you agree with. 

Can we hear from the next witness. And I request 
that you keep it brief as possible and don't be repetitive. 

MS. DIAZ: Good afternoon. My name is Martha 
Diaz. 

You have heard testimony from Ms. Ichinaga and 
her supporters as to why she should be confirmed to the State 
Board of Education. They include the fact that she is an 
immigrant; she speaks Japanese as well as English; and that she 
has a successful track record in educating her students as 
principal of Bennett-Kew. 

What has not been stated are the following facts. 
Prop. 227 did not ban alternative programs, also known as 
bilingual education programs. There are currently 187,832 
students enrolled in bilingual education programs throughout the 
state . 

Recent preliminary studies have been published 
documenting that schools with bilingual education programs are 
performing as well or better than schools with English immersion 
programs. The State Board of Education, in its defense and 
support of Prop. 227, acknowledged that, quote, "Not all 
children will be best served by sheltered or structured English 
immersion as required by Prop. 227." The State Board of 
Education also acknowledged their reliance on the proposition's 
waiver provisions and stated that these provisions would serve 
as a safety net for those children who would not benefit from 
the mandated sheltered English immersion program. 

Ms. Ichinaga ' s on public record as not obeying 



16 



the Chacon-Mosconi Act of 1976, and is on public record as a 
strident opponent of bilingual education. 

Ms. Ichinaga, on behalf of former Governor 
Wilson, filed a declaration in support of Proposition 227. In 
her letters to Members of the Senate Rules Committee, 
Ms. Ichinaga fails to answer critical questions -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Is that a disqualifier for 
serving on the State Board of Education? 

MS. DIAZ: In my opinion, yes, it is. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Is someone who voted for 227 
then unfit to serve? 

MS. DIAZ: Can I finish my statement? 

SENATOR JOHNSON: You can answer the question. 

MS. DIAZ: In my opinion, Prop. 227 is not the 
appropriate instructional method for — 

SENATOR JOHNSON: The question was, you've said 
that someone who filed a declaration on behalf of 227 is not 
qualified to serve in your opinion. 

The next question was, is someone who voted for 
227 unqualified to serve on the State Board of Education? You 
can answer it yes or no. 

MS. DIAZ: Is someone who voted for Prop. 227 
unqualified? I believe that that person would not be able to 
represent adequately those children who are in alternative 
education programs, yes. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Would then, therefore, the only 
person qualified be someone who didn't vote on 227? 

MS. DIAZ: Again, my opinion is that an 



17 



individual who voted for Prop. 227 did not necessarily act on 
behalf of the best interests of the students. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: They're therefore unqualified? 

MS. DIAZ: They should not serve as a 
representative of all students -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I think we've gotten very 
clearly what your opinion is, thank you. 

Can we hear from next the witness, please. 

MS. INZUNZA-FRANCO: Honorable Chairman, who's 
not here, and Members of the Rules Committee, my name is Gloria 
Inzunza-Franco. I'm a parent from Paramount High School. I'm 
here representing the parents that are from that high school. I 
live in the City of Lakewood, in Ms. Karnette's district. I'm 
happy to be here. 

As I said, I'm representing the parents from the 
Parents Center at the high school, and it is our concern that 
parental choice, or right to choose alternative programs, for 
example, bilingual education programs, will be greatly 
jeopardized if Ms. Nancy Ichinaga is confirmed to the State 
Board of Education. 

We are a group of parents who would like our 
children to be instructed in bilingual education programs; 
however, our school district does not respect this parental 
choice. Our school district currently provides only two types 
of programs: the English language mainstream program, and the 
structured English immersion program. This is counter to the 
provisions under Prop. 227 and counter to the Attorney General's 
opinion that states that a school district may not deny a 



18 



parental request for an individual waiver en the sole ground 
that the district has no alternative program. 

In light of Ms. Ichinaga 's support of only 
sheltered English immersion, and her strong opposition to 
bilingual education programs, we as parents believe she will not 
represent our interests if confirmed to the State Board of 
Education. We believe that Ms. Ichinaga will not be able to 
see beyond her experience in her own school. 

It is for these reasons that I urge you not to 
confirm Ms. Ichinaga to the State Board of Education. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you very much, ma'am. 

Next witness. 

MS. WORKNEH: Mine might be a little longer than 
hers . 

My name is Romelia Workneh, born in California, 
raised in California. I'm from Parents for Unity, a nonprofit 
organization which trains parents in leadership development, 
letting them know that they can participate in the education of 
their children, and letting them know what is school reform, to 
empower the parents to participate. 

I'm here to address you, the Senate Rules 
Committee, to encourage you to oppose the appointment of 
Ms. Nancy Ichinaga. My main reason is accountability. She is 
not accountable to our constituents, which is evident in her 
support of a system which continually operates without regard 
to Supreme Court orders or laws mandatory -- mandated on our 
state books. She is not accountable to the community which 
produces the children and recognizes our own needs. 



19 



She does not support that we have a choice, a 
fundamental right in each of our lives, essence of our 
individual quality of life. 

She supports 227, which was a blow to bilingual 
education. We should have embraced bilingual education and 
improved it to the extent -- to our larger community. One of 
the better schools in Los Angeles, California is Cohinga 
Elementary. They didn't have a bilingual program; they had a 
dual language program. They had the highest test scores in the 
state. 

The other component of 227 which gives parents 
choice, which is my argument, which has occurred in schools -- 
the schools choosing, we need someone unlike Nancy Ichinaga to 
support parents' right to choose. We need to -- that means we 
are opposed to one who would not enforce implementation of laws 
and support parents' rights. We needs a friend here. 

We are opposed to Ms. Nancy Ichinaga, who ignored 
the mandates of Chacon-Mosconi Act. We urge you to vote no to 
appointing Ms. Ichinaga, to allow us to enlighten our community, 
have choice. 

Parents are a knowledgeable stakeholder -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Excuse me, ma'am. Senator 
Knight has a question. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I'll ask you the same question 
as I asked the other -- 

MS. WORKNEH: Can I finish my thing first? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I'd like to ask the question 
because it's fresh, and you just mentioned it. 



20 



Would you then support parent's choice with a 
voucher program? 

MS. WORKNEH: I absolutely support parent's 
choice. We have choice now. We have open enrollment -- 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Would you support a choice with 
a voucher program giving parents choice? 

MS. WORKNEH: No, because I think the voucher 
program is a cancellation of public education. 

The first year you're going to say, "Yes, we're 
going to give you $5,000," and you're going to -- we can choose 
whatever school we want to. And the reality is, you could not 
go to a private education because if everybody has $5,000, 
what's going to happen to the tuition in the public — in the 
private schools? They'll raise it up because they can't 
accommodate all those children. 

And then, the next year, you're going to say, 
"Okay, we got your voucher for $5,000, but we're having a 
problem with the budget --" 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you for telling me how the 
voucher system works. 

MS. WORKNEH: I know how it's going to work. 
Well, you asked me a question, and then you're going to say, 
"Parents, you need to pull the money out of your pocket because 
the state doesn't have it." I don't support that kind of 
education. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: We're getting rather far 
afield, and number two, I think we have begun to see a clear and 
consistent theme in the opposition, so I would ask if you could 



21 



conclude your testimony. 

MS. WORKNEH: Okay, and what is my theme, sir? 

SENATOR JOHNSON: You're clearly saying that in 
your view, the nominee is not qualified because she would not be 
a friend. In the past, expressions of opposition to 227 means 
that she's hostile to choice at the local level, and 
implementing the court decisions relative to 227. 

We have been listening to all the witnesses, what 
you've had to say. 

MS. WORKNEH: Mine is more broad than just 227. 
We have choices in a lot of programs. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: We'll give you another minute 
to conclude your testimony, and then any further testimony in 
opposition you may submit it in writing, and it will be made 
available to Members prior to a vote on the Floor. 

Go ahead, ma'am. 

MS. WORKNEH: We have parents in L.A. Unified 
have filed a complaint about the L.A. Unified School District 
because we have laws on the books, and we have people that are 
in place that don't implement the laws, okay. And right now, we 
are in moderation about that. 

What I'm saying is, we need people who are going 
to be representing our interests. In other words, the interests 
of the people. We have laws on the books. Support the laws 
that we have really pushed for as a nation, and not just as 
individuals . 

Thank you so much. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Other witnesses? Just 



22 



identify yourselves for record and submit any testimony you have 
in writing. It will be made available to all the Members prior 
to any Floor votes on this nomination. 

MS. GUANDIQUE: [Spoken in Spanish] . Listen to 
me one minute. [Continues in Spanish] . 

SENATOR JOHNSON: You may submit your testimony 
in writing. It will be incorporated in the record. 

MS. GUANDIQUE: Okay, thank you. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Sir. 

MR. SCHILLA: Mr. Chairman, my name Peter 
Schilla, and I represent a coalition called Californians 
Together. 

And we are opposed to this nomination. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you very much, sir. 

Any further questions? 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, I would like to ask 
Ms. Ichinaga, if the community wanted bilingual education, and 
you were the principal, how would you handle that? 

MS. ICHINAGA: If a community wanted, when this 
bill passed, we were supposed to have all the parents decide how 
they wanted their children to be taught, in Spanish or in 
English. 

We did that. And our parents overwhelmingly 
said, "You teach them English. We'll do the Spanish at home." 

SENATOR KARNETTE: There have been some 
allegations that people are afraid you would not follow the 
law. 

Now, you are on the Board of Education now. And 



23 



if you are confirmed, will you tell us you will follow the law? 

MS. ICHINAGA: Will I follow the law? I won't 
break the law. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, that's following it. 

I just wanted to make that real clear. It sounds 
kind of like a courtroom, I guess. But I just wanted to be 
sure, because some people are afraid that you might. 

MS. ICHINAGA: I was reminded that I take an oath 
to follow the law, and I take my oath very seriously. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other questions. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Move the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Knight. Call 
the roll. 

I think I probably ought to declare myself that, 
I guess, somehow, somewhere, Nancy Ichinaga knew my former 
father-in-law in the State of Hawaii. I mean, if you grew up on 
a sugar plantation, you probably did know him, because he 
organized the sugar workers. 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator 'Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 



24 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you and congratulations 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:30 P.M.] 
--00O00-- 






25 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 



: J L 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



/ <. 



/ day of 



, 2001 




Jl 



- s 



y 



EVELYN J. MIZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



416-R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 416-R when ordering. 



LSoo 
*1 




too I 




*u> .B 










HEARING 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

APR 1 6 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2001 
1:33 P.M. 



417-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2 001 
1:33 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 
SENATOR ROSS JOHNSON, Vice Chair 
SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 
SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR ED VINCENT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

SUSIE SWATT, Consultant to SENATOR JOHNSON 

TIM SHELLEY, Consultant to SENATOR KARNETTE 

CHRIS BURNS, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

CAROLYN ROBINSON, Consultant to SENATOR VINCENT 

ALSO PRESENT 

STEVEN H. BRACKETT, Member 
Youthful Offender Parole Board 

ROBERT PRESLEY, Secretary- 
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency 

JAMES E. VOGTS 

L.A. County Professional Peace Officers 

International Union of Police Associations 

CLANCY FARIA, President 

Police Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) 

AARON READ 
PORAC 



Ill 



LYNNE S. COFFIN 
State Public Defender 

GARY C. RYNEARSON, Member 

State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 

SENATOR WES CHESBRO 

MARK PAWLICKI 

Simpson Timber Company 

MARK RENTZ 

California Forestry Association 

ERIC CARLESON 

California Licensed Foresters Association 

ALEX RATE 
Sierra Club 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings . 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

STEVEN H. BRACKETT, Member 

Youthful Offender Parole Board 1 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR SHEILA KUEHL 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Factors Board Considers in Considering 

Treatment for Wards 4 

Availability of Slots for Those Wards 

Needing Drug or Alcohol Programs 5 

Denial of Treatment Due to Lack of 

Space in Programs 6 

Board's Ability to See that Recommended 
Treatment Is Provided 7 

Parole Consideration Dates Set Above 

Guidelines 8 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Mental Health Needs of Inmates 10 

Mental Retardation in Wards 10 

Inability of Inmates to Read 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON of 
SECRETARY ROBERT PRESLEY re: 

Availability of Treatment Slots ... 12 

Reasons for Delays in Treatment 12 



V 



Nine -month Drug Treatment Program 13 

Length of Treatment Program, 

Statute or Regulation 14 

Statements by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Evidence of Efficacy of Nine-month 

Programs 14 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Request to Look into the Nine-month 

Drug Treatment Programs 15 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Length of Betty Ford Program 15 

Motion to Confirm 16 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Number of Counseling Hours Per Ward 16 

Request of SECRETARY PRESLEY by 
CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

List of Various Programs and Length of 

Time for Each 17 

Witnesses in Support: 

JIM VOGTS 

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers 

Association and International Union of 

Police Associations 17 

CLANCY FARIA, President 

Police Officers Research Association of California ... 18 

AARON READ 

PORAC 18 

Committee Action 19 



VI 



LYNNE S. COFFIN 

State Public Defender 19 

Opening Statement 19 

Motion to Confirm 2 

Committee Action 20 

GARY C. RYNEARSON, Member 

State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 20 

Background and Experience 20 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Timber Harvesting Plans 21 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR WES CHESBRO 22 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Ability to Continue to Push for 

Protection of Salmon, Steelhead, and 

Things of that Nature 23 

Board's Plans to Address Clear-Cutting in 

Sierra Nevada 24 

Procedure to Put Something before the 

Board 24 

Board's Action to Address Decline of 

Salmon in North Coast 25 

Possibility of Initiative on Clear- 
Cutting 26 

Witnesses in Support : 

MARK PAWLICKI 

Simpson Timber Company 27 

MARK RENTZ 

California Forestry Association 28 



VI 1 



ERIC CARLESON 

California Licensed Foresters Association 28 

ALEX RATE 

Sierra Club 28 

Motion to Confirm 29 

Committee Action 30 

Termination of Proceedings 30 

Certificate of Reporter 31 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Youthful Offender Parole Board, 
Steven Brackett. 

Senator Kuehl. 

SENATOR KUEHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
Members . 

I simply came here to speak very, very, very, 
very, very strongly in favor of Mr. Brackett 's appointment. 
I've known him. He was a resident of Santa Monica, worked with 
the Santa Monica Police Department. That's how I first met him, 
not in his official capacity, of course. 

I think he would be a fine addition to the Board, 
a fair-minded man, always interested in justice, a fine law 
enforcement official, and one that I think exemplifies all of 
the attributes that you might want in an appointee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Senator Kuehl. 

Go ahead. 

MR. BRACKETT: Thank you very much. I'm honored 
to be here before you today. I'm appearing for review and 
confirmation vote as a Board Member for the California Youthful 
Offender Parole Board. 

I'd first like to introduce my family, if I can. 
My wife. Next to her is George, my son Matthew, and my daughter 
is the camera bug running around behind you. 

Listing my experiences and qualifications, as 
well as my goals as a Board Member of YOPB are the subject of 
documents I previously submitted to you. Therefore, I will now 



focus on a brief overview of such issues so that you may ask 
questions or get into issues that you may desire. 

As my good friend, and I'm honored to have her 
with me here today, Senator Kuehl pointed out, I have been a 
police officer for 32 years, including assignments working with 
both successful and troubled youth. 

I've been involved in policy making as well as 
supervisory positions relating to youth and youth programs, and 
I've also served on various POST Commission task forces in this 
state. 

As a member of the California JCs, I helped 
community ties be strengthened and supported youth programs. 
I've actively served in my church and my community, including 
four years as a school board member and chair of our school 
board. 

I've served on my local union for 27 years, eight 
terms of which were chair. I've been a PORAC member for 32 
years, including numerous elected and appointed positions. My 
local union is a charter member of CCLEA and SCALE, and I've 
also served the California Police Memorial Foundation. 

Over the past year, I have served on the YOPB 
Board. I've absorbed as much knowledge and skills as I can as a 
Board member, and yet clearly, day by day, learn more. It's an 
exciting time for YOPB and the Youth Authority, with new 
leadership, more energy. The latest budget includes even a 
little more funding so that we can look at programs. I'm just 
really looking forward to the opportunity of continuing 
involvement in that process. 



I can go over briefly my goals, if you'd like, or 
we can rest at that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go for them. 

MR. BRACKETT: All right. Certainly, I will 
continue to become more aware of the various aspects of my new 
position and continue to provide input and independent analysis 
to the Youth Authority. 

I'll be vigilant at hearings, especially noting 
whether or not wards are receiving the programming that is 
ordered, and whether or not that programming is meeting the 
needs of their individual case. 

Another area I'm very interested in is continuing 
to strengthen the relationship between YOPB and the Youth 
Authority, as well as respecting and holding as a high priority 
my duty to include important criteria as well as public safety 
as critical factors in making that difficult decision to parole 
somebody back into society. 

An area that I hope some of the new funding that 
we have can be devoted to is specifically to look at programming 
both within institutions and through parole services for female 
wards. As you know, they make up about five percent of the 
Youth Authority population. 

I also see it's important for us to bring from 
Board hearings issues directly to the leadership of the Youth 
Authority. I think it's a very unique aspect that the YOPB is 
able to fulfill and accomplish by cutting through bureaucracy, 
and discussing with Mr. Harper and his staff the issues that we 
see that are worthy of examination. 



And lastly, seeking a successful compromise as to 
how to deal with those offenders that have dual commitments both 
through the Youth Authority as well as the California Department 
of Corrections. There's a quagmire of problems related to how 
to deal successfully with those people and implementing our goal 
of shared mandate of providing for public safety. 

With that, if you have any questions, I'll be 
happy to respond to them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When a youthful offender comes 
before the Board, what factors do you individually or the Board 
consider in determining what treatment is needed while person's 
either inside or out on parole? 

MR. BRACKETT: When they come before us for an 
initial hearing, that's their first hearing. Happens within two 
months, roughly, of coming to the Youth Authority through court 
orders . 

We have an analysis done by staff of their 
background, their commitment offenses, and any other issues that 
we think can help us determine the available programming needs 
for them. Certainly we look to see if they were themselves, for 
instance, sexually abused. Then we want to get them into sexual 
abuse program. 

Tragically, as you know, all too often those same 
offenders may be in custody for sexual offenses, and we have 
another program, a Sexual Offender Program, so we would in that 
case put them into both those programs. 

Victim Awareness, Gang Awareness if gangs is a 
parts of their background. 



Drug addiction, we have drug programs for them; 
an intensified program or an informal program, depending upon 
the depth of their addiction problems. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have enough slots for 
everybody that needs to get into a drug program? 

MR. BRACKETT: I don't know that we will ever 
have enough slots. If you have a program, there's always the 
size of the class, so to speak. 

We certainly get them through the programs as 
best we can based upon available funds and resources to us. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, you could have an N.A. 
program, an A. A. program, a P. A. program. Doesn't cost anything 
except coffees, cookies, and a room. 

MR. BRACKETT: In all due respect to those people 
that are on the streets on their own, they're not under parole 
supervision or court mandates, those programs may well be 
successful and doing a lion's share of the work that they need. 

We find many times with our offenders, as they 
gain parole, there are so many other factors that they're still 
trying to deal with. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm talking about while they're 
inside, not when they're outside. 

MR. BRACKETT: While they're inside, our drug 
programs are run very effectively. I believe they're much more 
in depth, you would find, than A. A. or N.A. programs. 

We don't serve cookies and coffee to them. We 
do, however, have them get very deeply involved in their own 
drug addiction, and what goals they can set. Similar, perhaps, 



to A. A. or N.A., but you'll find much more intensified. They 
turn in written projects and the like. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And anybody that needs it has a 
slot inside? 

MR. BRACKETT: Anybody that needs a drug 
rehabilitation -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If somebody's got a drug 
program, they need drug rehabilitation or education while 
they're inside, is there a slot for them in all the programs? 

MR. BRACKETT: We Board-order it, and as I said 
before, one of my continuing goals is to constantly monitor at 
hearings whether or not the Board ordered programming is, in 
fact, being provided to them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know for a fact whether 
or not that the wards who the Board determines should be going 
through, for want of a better word, a chemical dependency 
program, are the slots available for them? Are there some that 
they can't get in? 

MR. BRACKETT: I don't know personally of any 
programs that they've been denied getting into. 

Now, you do look at severity of situations. They 
may have a sex offender program that seems to be more burning 
than their drug addiction problem, so they may not start both 
programs simultaneously. We will prioritize, depending upon 
their needs. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, your answer is, to your 
knowledge, you don't know anyone who has been denied treatment 
because of lack of space in the program? 



MR. BRACKETT: I don't know of anyone denied 
treatment for that reason. Certainly there are those who have 
refused to program. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then they aren't denied it. 
They just don't do it. 

MR. BRACKETT: Correct, sir. We've had some that 
are disciplinary problems, and they can't be put into a 
classroom atmosphere. They will continue to act up and 
victimize other people. So, there are other factors that many 
times impact whether or not they get into a program. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But not for lack of slots. 

MR. BRACKETT: I'm unaware of us denying them 
access to programs due to lack of slots. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You said one of your missions 
is to make sure that when treatment is prescribed by the Board 
that you follow-up to see that, basically, the treatment's been 
provided. 

MR. BRACKETT: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And what if it hasn't been? 
What's the Board's ability to do anything? 

MR. BRACKETT: We bring it to attention of the 
supervisor that day, of the staff members involved in the 
programming for the given ward, and we have the ability to talk 
to the superintendent or the assistant superintendent of the 
institution and bring it to their attention. 

We also notify our headquarters here in 
Sacramento, and they, too, will monitor and see to it that the 
problem is addressed. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, there is adequate 
coorindation between the Board and the CYA that you can go to 
the head of the CYA and say, either in this institution, or in 
this instance, they're not providing the treatment that we 
thought was important for the ward? 

MR. BRACKETT: If that's what's necessary. 
Mr. Harper has made himself very much available to our Board 
members. I know of a Board member that has called Mr. Harper 
directly. We generally try to handle it, though, through 
routine quarterly meetings that we have with him. We agendize 
the items, and we bring it up before Mr. Harper and his staff 
and let them address it. 

We then get follow-up at our subsequent meetings 
from them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One of the problems recently 
that came up during policy committee hearings and budget 
hearings were that the PCDs were always set above the guidelines 
that were put in for them. 

One of the arguments says, well, it was the 
severity of the offense, which, as I understand the mission of 
the Board, as opposed to the Department of Corrections, is 
trying to rehabilitate these people. 

But even with minor offenses, it seems that the 
parole consideration dates go beyond the deadline. 

Do you have any comment you can make on that? 

MR. BRACKETT: Certainly a parole consideration 
date is set by regulations. Those regulations include the 
ability for us to modify it a bit if that's appropriate for the 



individual's case. But we have to look at each case on a 
case-by-case basis. If a youth has been involved in a death — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, we're talking about less 
serious offenses. We're not talking about death. 

MR. BRACKETT: All right. If one youth has 
committed a burglary, we can't just look at 459 of the Penal 
Code as the commitment offense alone. We have to look at the 
depth of what's happened here. Maybe it was a shoplifting, and 
that ended up as a burglary, and they have some other prior 
convictions, and that's what caused them to come to the Youth 
Authority for burglary. 

The next ward coming in could be involved in a 
burglary of a bank, or something. It could be a severe -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Armed robbery? Burglary of a 
bank? 

MR. BRACKETT: Well, they could break into a bank 
at night when it's otherwise closed, or a major business, a 
jewelry store. Much more sophistication involved. They may 
show gang involvement. They may show that they're doing it for 
feeding a drug habit. 

That person's going to demand more programming 
than the youth that's committed to us for a string of relatively 
minor offenses, and then finally got a burglary for a 
premeditated shoplifting. 

So, we will look at the specifics of each case to 
decide what is best for them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 



10 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: You mentioned drug treatment, 
but now what about those identified as needing mental health? 
How do you determine -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Excuse me. Can we help you, 
sir? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Just if you have any 
questions . 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I'm interested in the ones 
that have mental health needs. Can you separate those, and what 
happens to those that really need mental health treatment? 

MR. BRACKETT: That's one of the issues we do 
look at in intake. 

If we find that they need mental health 
evaluation, it's done by staff. We can Board-order subsequent 
treatment summaries at subsequent meetings or hearings that we 
hold so we can better determine their progress in that regard. 

There are onsite facilities, depending upon the 
institution that we direct them to, to handle those that have 
more severe mental health problems than others. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: What about mental retardation? 
We hear a lot about that. 

MR. BRACKETT: We have special education 
programs, Special Ed., and they get much more intensified direct 
assistance in getting through their schooling needs. We 
certainly have a goal, several years, that, given the time when 
a ward comes to the Youth Authority, they will get a GED or a 
high school diploma before they leave. That's a goal that we 



11 



strive to attain. 

And yet we find some in Special Ed. are unable to 
attain that, but that doesn't stop us from working as well as we 
can in preparing them for parole, and we encourage them to 
continue . 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I know this has been asked a 
lot of times, but many of these young people cannot read very 
well. Do you feel like you have success with getting them to 
read? I know you can't make them; you actually can't make them. 
You can make them go to class. 

MR. BRACKETT: We can only expose them to 
programming. We can't make them learn and absorb. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I understand that. 

MR. BRACKETT: As a teacher, I'm sure you do. 

And yet, it's been very gratifying for me, in 
this short year, to see that wherever there's a ward that wants 
to learn, if they're ready to learn, the Youth Authority is 
there to provide them the treatment that they may need, if it's 
Special Ed. treatment, customized treatment for their needs. 
Otherwise, if they don't have a special education problem, we 
have the programming for them. 

We have some wards graduating with A. A. degrees 
while they're in the Youth Authority. There's educational 
opportunities there for them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I wanted to know if that's an 
Air Force jacket. If not, why not? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: It's Air Force, no question. 



12 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: He's old enough, it's Air 
Corps . 

This question is for Secretary Presley. So 
basically in the CYA, the wards who need some program to benefit 
them in the rehabilitation -- whether it's literacy and 
education, whether it's if they're developmentally disabled, if 
they're mentally ill, if they have a substance abuse problem -- 
those slots are available there as opposed to kind of a lack 
thereof in Corrections? 

Corrections, I know that there's waiting lists 
for almost anything that helps rehabilitate somebody. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: That's one of the reasons I 
came up and wanted to clarify. 

The drug treatment question, there are two 
programs. One's called the Informal Drug, and the other is 
Formal Drug. The Formal Drug treatment takes nine months. 

And as far as I know, I think they ultimately get 
the treatment, but in many cases, it's delayed a considerable 
period of time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: For what reason? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: The program slots are not 
available. And the tragedy to that really is that they end up 
having to serve longer than they would have otherwise had to 
serve, because they have to stay there until that drug treatment 
is completed before they can be released on parole. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's stupid. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Well, the answer to that is 
that you provide some more drug treatment slots. 



13 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, the answer is, I never 
heard of a drug treatment program that was nine-month program 
myself. That's for openers. 

And to keep somebody in because we have not 
provided the program that somebody thinks they ought to take for 
nine months, to keep them in longer than they should have, makes 
no sense at all. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: They're not being -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Drug treatment programs, with 
all respect, are 21, 28 days for that, and then it's the rest of 
the life. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: These are the ones with very, 
very serious problems. That's why they're called formal. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know people with very serious 
problems, and they went through the 21-day basic treatment, and 
then the rest of the treatment's basically for the rest of your 
life. 

I would like to know who is the one that figured 
out there's a nine-month drug treatment program necessary for 
anybody? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: It's been there many years. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, that makes it right. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Somebody must have thought it 
out years ago. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, they thought it out years 
ago that they put you in jail for two to twenty for two sales of 
one stick of marijuana, and that didn't make sense either. 

Has anybody ever looked at that? One, it's a 



14 



waste of money. And two, keeping somebody in because they 
couldn't get into a program nine months, but there is no drug 
treatment program that I know anywhere in the country where the 
basic treatment, or the basic intervention start, whatever, is a 
nine-month deal. 

I mean, I'm very aware of those programs. Then 
you have the after-care, which is basically an A. A. meeting, an 
N.A. meeting, whatever it might be. 

Is that like a regulation? Is that like a 
statute? What is that? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I don't know. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is that somebody's idea? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Like I said, it's been there 
a long time. 

Per your suggestion, I'll look into it. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, I think you raise 
a pretty legitimate point. If there is efficacy in a nine-month 
program, it ought to be pretty easy to bring forward the 
evidence that they have far greater success with kids over a 
nine-month period than some 21 or 28-day program. I personally 
tend to doubt that that's the case, but it seems to me that's a 
pretty easily discernible answer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'd like to know whether it's 
regulation, when it started, because there's no drug treatment 
program that I'm aware of anywhere. In nine months they could 
win, or nine months they could lose. You have people that fall 
all the time. 

I mean, I went through a program, 21 days. I 



15 



know other programs are 28 days. I mean that's the basic. Then 
it's every day for the rest of your life. 

But nine months, and then keeping somebody in 
because the thing was full, because somebody a long time ago, 
when it was the Air Corps, decided that nine months was the deal 
because they didn't know anything then. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I'll find out about the 
nine-month program. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm going to pass that on also 
to the Budget Committee. I'd like to have somebody come back 
and tell me what they do with these guys for nine months. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I'll find out. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: It is interesting in view of 
the nominee's comments earlier about other programs that need 
additional financial support. If we're cycling wards through a 
nine-month drug rehabilitation program, and some of the basic 
education programs, and so on, Special Ed. or whatever it might 
be is being neglected that process. Make a lot of sense. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What's the length of time for the Betty Ford 
programs? Are they nine months? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No way. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Reportedly, the reputation, they 
seem to be somewhat successful. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, you know, they can work 
and may not. Whatever works for you may not work for me. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yes, I understand that. 



16 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: But there's no program in the 
world that I've ever heard going beyond 30 days as far as the 
basic program. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: There's some established length 
of time that gives you a pretty good percentage. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I'm hoping this hearing won't 
go beyond that. 

I'd like to move -- 



CHAIRMAN BURTON 



Well, how about witnesses in 



support? 



Fine . 

Witnesses in opposition. 

Fine . 

You might just drive me right 



SENATOR JOHNSON 

CHAIRMAN BURTON 

SENATOR JOHNSON 

CHAIRMAN BURTON 
to tears, Mr. Johnson. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: And I'm going to cry over here 
if I don't get to say something. 

The one thing about mental health, I know there's 
really not much time given to it. There's some, but it says in 
the notes here that the funding level is very low, and it's just 
seven hours of counseling per case per week. 

If you really need help, is that an absolute 
rule, or can you concentrate it at the beginning, all the hours 
that a person's going to get? At the beginning, or does it have 
to be spread out? 

MR. BRACKETT: We're in the process of reviewing 
that now, and especially based upon the budget increase for 
additional funding for mental health, we feel very confident 



17 



that we're going to be able to expand the program and enhance it 
better to the needs of the individual ward. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would like, and I don't k ow 
if you want to do it, Bob, but someone to give us the list of 
the various programs, and the time lengths that you're dealing 
with. 

I don't want to beat a dead horse any more, but 
if we're blowing money by keeping people in longer in some drug 
program, it doesn't make sense. And we aren't giving mentally 
ill kids or kids who have real problem that take a longer 
time . 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I'll get you a list and an 
evaluation of each one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Appreciate that. Maybe you 
could find the year that that was adopted. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Well, the Air Corps was Ml; 
wasn't it. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, briefly. 

Thank you, Senator Kuehl . 

MR. VOGTS: Mr. Chairman and Senators, my name 
is Jim Vogts, representing Los Angeles County Professional Peace 
Officers Association and the International Union of Police 
Associations . 

I personally have known Steve Brackett for over 
twenty years. He's a man of principle, and we strongly support 
his confirmation. 

Thank you, sir. 



18 



MR. FARIA: My name's Clancy Faria, and I'm the 
current President of Police Officers Research Association of 
California, PORAC. 

I have worked with Steve for over twenty years in 
PORAC in many, many different areas. Whether he was a sergeant 
with the police department he worked for, or working for PORAC, 
or taking instruction as to what to do for PORAC, he has just 
been an outstanding, outstanding person. His credibility is 
unapproachable . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you related to Jane Faria? 

MR. FARIA: I am not. Didn't help. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One mark against him. 
[Laughter. ] 

MR. READ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. 

It's been my pleasure as the advocate for PORAC 
to work with Steve for a number of years on issues. I'm hugely 
impressed with his integrity, his passion, and his compassion. 
Senator Kuehl and I and often talked about him when he wasn't 
around, how great he is, so I couldn't resist coming up and 
telling you. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, moved by Senator Johnson. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 






SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR KNIGHT 
SECRETARY WEBB 



Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 

Aye. 

Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 



19 



SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. Congratulations, 



sir 



MR. BRACKETT: Thank you, sir. 
'CHAIRMAN BURTON: Lynne Coffin, State Public 
Defender, who has a bad case of laryngitis. 

Do you want somebody to read your statement for 
you? 

MS. COFFIN: I think I can do it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The question isn't whether or 
not you can read it. The question is whether or not we can hear 
it. 

MS. COFFIN: Should I try? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sure. 

MS. COFFIN: [Whispering] Good afternoon. I'm 
particularly pleased to be here this afternoon, as 2001 marks 
the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the State Public 
Defender's Office. 

Our mission continues to be the representation of 
indigent defendants. We now represent approximately 100 men and 
women in California before the California Supreme Court. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: This is too painful. 

MS. COFFIN: It's not painful to me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think that you have visited 
with the Members of the Committee. 



20 



Do Members have any questions you want to ask? 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 
Witnesses in opposition? 

Moved by Senator Karnette. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I might recommend this. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

Gary Rynearson, Member of the State Board of 
Forestry and Fire Protection. 

MR. RYNEARSON: Good afternoon, Chairman Burton, 
Members of the Committee. 

My name is Gary Rynearson. To give you some 
background, I was born and raised in Arcada, California, but 
also between that time -- and I received my formal education 
from Humboldt State University, I also lived in Alaska and 
British Columbia. 

I'm a second generation forester. I graduated 
from Humboldt State in 1977 with a degree in forestry. I'm a 



21 



registered professional forester. I've been practicing forestry 
in this state for approximately twenty years. 

I'm also very familiar with the activities of the 
State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, as I'm the past 
President of the California Licensed Foresters Association, and 
attended many Board meetings and testified before the Board on 
many occasions. 

I've also served on several Board of Forestry 
committees. Most recently I was the Chairman of the 
Professional Foresters Examining Committee, a position that I 
just recently resigned to focus on my appointment to the Board 
of Forestry. This is the committee that is charged with the 
licensing of foresters and recommended disciplinary action for 
foresters who violate the regulations. 

In 1991, I served as the -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you do timber harvesting 
plans, and stuff like that? 

MR. RYNEARSON: Personally? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, I mean, does your board 
just license foresters, or- do you have to do with timber 
harvesting? 

MR. RYNEARSON: We do both, Senator. The 
Professional Foresters Examining Committee is charged with 
licensing of foresters. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Right, but how about timber 
cutting practices? 

MR. RYNEARSON: The PFEC, or the Professional 
Foresters Examining Committee, is a subcommittee of the Board. 



22 



The Board of Forestry oversees forest practices. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm not quite being that 
obtuse, I don't think. 

Isn't one of the duties of the Board regulating 
timber harvesting practices? 

MR. RYNEARSON: Yes, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which a lot of us think is 
really more important than regulating. 

Senator Chesbro. 

SENATOR CHESBRO: I'm a little tardy. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The last witnesses was very 
smart and got laryngitis walking in the room. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR CHESBRO: Well, Mr. Chairman and Members, 
Gary Rynearson is a friend of mine. He's a constituent, not 
just as a Senator, but when I was a County Supervisor I had the 
pleasure of representing him. I appointed him as a member of 
the Board of Supervisors to be my representative on the Humboldt 
County Forestry Advisory Committee. 

He comes from the industry side. He and I don't 
always agree, but I will tell you that he's widely respected for 
his fairness, his open-mindedness, and his interest in solutions 
that actually try to solve both environmental problems and 
having a viable timber economy, which is, as they say in my 
district, a little bit like being for a leaning tree as opposed 
to a standing one or one that's laying down. But he makes that 
valiant effort, and it's not always a popular approach. 

But I do think he's fair, open-minded, and I am 



23 



pleased to recommend him, and introduce him to you, and urge 
your support. 

MR. RYNEARSON: Thank you, Senator Chesbro. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I've got a couple questions. I 
think that Senator Chesbro' s introduction sort of answered them. 

Coming from the industry, and as we look at that 
Board, it's either people from the industry or people from the 
unions that work in the industry, so they all have an open mind. 

Do you feel that you're going to be able to 
basically be steward for the people of the state on this, 
forgetting that we all bring our own bias and experience to it. 

A concern that I've had, and not just with you, 
but with the people that the Governor sends up, like a couple of 
them, their membership relies on clear-cutting from here to hell 
and gone. I think it was back in 1999, you made a 
recommendation about how better to protect salmon and steelhead, 
and things like that. That's kind of important to what's going 
on in the state. 

Do you feel you can still push for that type of 
program? 

MR. RYNEARSON: Yes. In fact, since serving on 
the Board May of this year -- May of last year, the Board has 
implemented many of those recommendations. There's still more 
recommendations in that report to be considered before the 
Board, probably the key one of which is the development of a 
watershed assessment program at the sublevel, or the smaller 
sub-basin level. That is still on the Board's agenda, and I 
suspect it's going to be a key issue of discussion this year. 



24 



As to your question for open-mindedness, and to 
represent the constituency of all the landowners as well as the 
public, I feel I can do that in a fair manner, listen to the 
issues presented to the Board, both by the public and the 
agencies and landowners. 

There are two other industrial representatives on 
the Board, both of whom represent large landowners. I feel my 
constituency is really with the small landowners, the small, 
nonindustrial landowners. 

Our firm manages about 25,000 acres of 
nonindustrial land ownership, and those clients use a diversity 
of forest management. Several of them have nonindustrial timber 
management plans where strictly selection of silvaculture is 
used, meaning, any clear-cutting that's done is done in very 
small patches. Others use, continue to use, larger clear-cuts, 
which can be up to 20-30 acres in size. 

There's a diversity of ownership, and that 
diversity of ownership, in and unto itself, develops a diversity 
of land management practices. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know if the Board's got 
any plans to address the clear-cutting issue in the Sierra 
Nevada? 

MR. RYNEARSON: That issue has not come before 
the Board formally to my knowledge at this time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's it take to get something 
before the Board? A citizen, a Board member, who? 

MR. RYNEARSON: Either a petition, or somebody 
can stand up and raise the issue and say, "We would like the 



25 



Board to address this issue." 

The watershed assessment -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: A petition would be like a 
letter from a group, a letter from an individual? 

MR. RYNEARSON: Yes, a formal rule-making 
process, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then the Board must put certain 
things on the agenda, or they've got the ability to ignore it? 

MR. RYNEARSON: If the Board receives -- it's my 
understanding, if the Board receives a formal request or 
petition for rule-making, the Board must take that item up as an 
agendaed item. 

Typically, it would go through one of the 
subcommittees first. It would be discussed at the subcommittee, 
then a report would come back to the general Board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And anything of like a 
significant concern to a group, they would use that process or 
procedure? 

MR. RYNEARSON: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As opposed to an individual may 
have a problem with something somewhere and may just stand up at 
a meeting and spout off? 

MR. RYNEARSON: Typically, those types of 
concerns are brought up during the public comment period of the 
Board. The Board sets aside a period during every meeting for 
the public to address the Board on non-agendaed items. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What, if anything, is the Board 
planning to do to address the decline of salmon in the North 



26 



Coast? Do they have plans to sunset the current interim rules 
on salmon protection, to extend those rules, to modify them 
either in a greater or probably lesser degree of protection? 

MR. RYNEARSON: The Board currently still has 
before it a consideration for a watershed assessment program. 
It did not pass last year. It's very likely that that will 
become a critical discussion item before the Board in its near 
meetings . 

Also, the Board is looking at how to coordinate 
that effort with the watershed -- development of watershed 
assessment with the current North Coast watershed assessment 
program that's been implemented by the Resources Agency in 
cooperation with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would something happen before 
that thing sunsets at the end of the year? 

MR. RYNEARSON: It's likely the Board is going to 
have to revisit both those issues prior to the end of the year. 
One as to whether or not to extend the interim rules, and two, 
the development of watershed assessment. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Because not necessarily dealing 
with this, but when I met with some gentlemen of the industry, 
and that if the industry and the Board does not start taking 
hold of things, they could be facing a fairly divisive and 
expensive initiative, depending on who you listen to, especially 
dealing with, quote, "clear-cutting", unquote. That the polling 
shows that it could well pass overwhelmingly, and surprisingly 
in areas where part of the economy, I guess, lives on cutting 
down trees. 



27 



I think it's very important for people like 
yourself, who come from the industry but appear to be, in the 
words of Senator Chesbro also, kind of enlightened on the 
subject. If the Board does not act in some kind of prudent way, 
that we're going to be faced with something that a lot of people 
aren't necessarily interested in seeing. 

I know that Wes would like to see some good 
initiative like that after he's termed out. 

Anyway, I've told that to Red Emerson and some of 
the other people. You know, Red's Red, and he was trying to get 
some more acres and get ahead of Ted Turner in private 
ownership. 

But I think it's a very serious problem and a 
serious concern, and not necessarily the whacky, shall we say, 
enviros, but some mainstream environmental movement is focused 
on this. I think the Board may have to protect the industry 
from some of its baser points of view. 

Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. Senator 
Knight. 

Do you have any family here at all? 

MR. RYNEARSON: No, I didn't think it was fair to 
subject a committee to my seven-year-old. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 

MR. PAWLICKI: Thank you. Mark Pawlicki, Simpson 
Timber Company. 

We're strongly in support of Mr. Rynearson. Find 



28 



him to be of the highest integrity. We've used his services in 
the past, and he has technical skills, knowledge, background. 
I've known his father before him, who was also a professional 
forester. We think he would be an excellent appointment to the 
Board. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do they still have the 
Fraternal Independent Order of Foresters? 

MR. RYNEARSON: The old Who-Who Club? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know what it was, but 
it's the Independent Order of Foresters. 

MR. RYNEARSON: It's not as prevalent at it used 
to be, but yes. 

MR. RENTZ: Mark Rentz, California Forestry 
Association. 

We, too, support the nomination of Mr. Rynearson. 
As Mr. Rynearson pointed out earlier, he brings forward the 
experience and the knowledge of the small landowner. We think 
that's an important ingredient for an industry representative at 
the Board. 

Thank you, sir. 

MR. CARLESON: I'm Eric Carleson with the 
California Licensed Foresters Association. Gary's been a member 
of the Association for almost twenty years. 

Our members include foresters who work for the 
state, for industry, for small landowners, and I strongly 
support Gary on it basis of his expertise and impartiality. 

MR. RATE: Alex Rate with Sierra Club. We're not 



29 



here opposing Mr. Rynearson. 

Rather, we just want to articulate some quick 
concerns with the direction that the Board of Forestry is going. 
Specifically, you asked some questions that I felt like need to 
be fleshed out a little bit more. 

As you know, the structure of the Board is such 
that three seats are reserved for the industry, one for a range 
land rep, and five for the public. The structure of the Board 
is such that it's very important that the Governor make good 
appointments to each seat. Obviously, Mr. Rynearson represents 
industry interests, specifically some of the smaller landowners. 

On that note, we do not oppose the fact of his 
confirmation, but we do have concerns that the Board has yet to 
signal the direction that it's going in terms of advancing 
protections for coho on the North Coast, which continue to 
decline, as well as to address the clear-cutting issue that has 
exploded throughout the Sierra Nevada in the last year. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other witnesses? 

Moved by Senator Johnson. 

I would, just to the witnesses of the industry, I 
hope you heard what I told Mr. Rynearson. If the industry 
doesn't shape up, they're going to have an initiative that 
they're going to all have to move down to the rain forests to 
cut down trees. Sell them to McDonald's, I guess. 

Moved by Senator Johnson. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Aye. 



30 



SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: 
MR. RYNEARSON: Thank you. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:20 P.M.] 
--00O00-- 



Senator Burton. 

Four to zero. 
Congratulations . 



31 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

, 2001. 



') — 



,^2___ day of \~fjJs;. \ ,- <- : <~y •■ 

il 




^ 



A* 



•-d 



EVELYN J. f^IZAK' 
Shorthand Reporter 



417-R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 417-R when ordering.